Viktor Zoltán Kazai - Central European University, Budapest

Name of the act/s*

2020. évi XII. törvény a koronavírus elleni védekezésről / Act XII of 2020 on the containment of coronavirus

Subject area

state of danger, special legal order, extraordinary measures, delegation of legislative power

Brief description of the contents of the act

The act extended the application of emergency measures (adopted in the form of government decrees) put in place by the executive after the declaration of the state of danger (a form of special legal order) in the beginning of Mars.

The act authorized the government to regulate any legislative issue related to the outbreak of the pandemic and its consequences by decree without setting any date for expiry.

The act prepared the Constitutional Court for digital operation. Elections and referenda were suspended until the end of the state of danger. The statutory definition of the crime of spreading false information was amended and the violation of the rules of epidemiological confinement was criminalized.

Comment

On 11 Mars 2020, the Hungarian government declared a state of danger (government decree no. 40/2020. (III. 11.)). The government’s constitutional authorization to issue decrees without the approval of the parliament lasted only for two weeks, therefore the governing majority adopted the Act XII of 2020 on the containment of coronavirus (hereinafter: Enabling Act).

The Enabling Act gave practically unlimited authorization to the government to regulate any issue related to the pandemic (even if only indirectly). The parliament continued to operate, but very important legislative measures were regulated by the government instead of the legislature. The constitutionality of both the declaration of the state of danger and the Enabling Act was a matter of controversy because neither the Fundamental Law of Hungary nor the previous jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court provided clear guidance. In sum, the government used to the authorization not only to contain the pandemic and mitigate its consequences, but also to put in place some very controversial legislative measures which would have required parliamentary approval.

The state of danger was terminated by the parliament and the delegation of legislative power was revoked on 18 of June 2020. However, the legislature adopted another parliamentary act on the very same day (Act LVIII of 2020 on the preparation for the pandemic and other transitional provisions related to the termination of the state of danger) making it much easier for the government to apply extraordinary legislative measures in case of a pandemic.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

1)     Declaration of the state of danger and the Enabling Act

Uitz, Renáta: Pandemic as Constitutional Moment: Hungarian Government Seeks Unlimited Powers, VerfBlog, 24 March 2020, https://verfassungsblog.de/pandemic-as-constitutional-moment/

Uitz, Renáta: Hungary’s Enabling Act: Prime Minister Orbán Makes the Most of the Pandemic, constitutionnet.org, 6 April 2020, http://constitutionnet.org/news/hungarys-enabling-act-prime-minister-orban-makes-most-pandemic

Kazai, Viktor Zoltán: La Nature Autoritaire du Régime d’Orbán Confirmée par sa Résponse a la Pandémie, JP blog, 6 May 2020, http://blog.juspoliticum.com/2020/05/06/la-nature-autoritaire-du-regime-dorban-confirmee-par-sa-reponse-a-la-pandemie-par-viktor-zoltan-kazai/

Bárd, Petra - Sergio Carrera: Showing true illiberal colours–Rule of law vs Orbán’s pandemic politics, CEPS Policy Insights No 2020-10/April 2020, http://aei.pitt.edu/102726/1/PI2020%2D10_PBSC_true%2Dilliberal%2Dcolours.pdf

 

Drinóczi, Tímea - Agnieszka Bień-Kacała : COVID-19 in Hungary and Poland: extraordinary situation and illiberal constitutionalism, The Theory and Practice of Legislation (2020), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20508840.2020.1782109?src=recsys

Hungarian Helsinki Committee: Background note on Act XII of 2020 on the containment of the coronavirus, 31 March 2020, https://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/HHC_background_note_Authorization_Act_31032020.pdf

2)     Restrictive measures put in place during the state of danger

Coronavirus pandemic in the EU –Fundamental Rights Implications (Hungary), European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 4 May 2020, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/hu_report_on_coronavirus_pandemic-_may_2020.pdf

3)     Controversial legislative measures during the state of danger

Karsai, Dániel: The Curious and Alarming Story of the City of Göd: How the Hungarian Government misuses its power in their political fight against opposition-led municipalities, VerfBlog, 2020/5/15, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-curious-and-alarming-story-of-the-city-of-goed/

For the brief analysis in English of some controversial measures put in place by the Hungarian government during the state of danger see the Covid-19 news of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee: https://www.helsinki.hu/en/covid-19-news/

4)     Termination of the state of danger and related legislative provisions

Hungarian Helsinki Committee: Explanatory Note for the Bills Terminating the State of Danger and on Related Transitional Provisions, 12 June 2020, https://www.helsinki.hu/en/explanatory-note-for-the-bills-on-terminating-the-state-of-danger-and-on-related-transitional-provisions/

*Act citation /year and number

Act XII of 2020 on the containment of coronavirus

Enacted by

Hungarian National Assembly

Official link to the text of the act

The Hungarian version: http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=218767.381191

The English translation:  http://njt.hu/translated/doc/J2020T0012P_20200401_FIN.pdf

Name of the act/s*

Judgment in Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU FMS and Others v Országos Idegenrendeszeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Országos Idegenrendeszeti Főigazgatóság

Subject area

refugee law, asylum

Brief description of the contents of the act

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the joint cases concerning two asylum-seeking families held in the transit zone in Röszke, at the Hungarian-Serbian border. The cases originate in preliminary ruling requests lodged by Hungarian judges in December 2019. The Hungarian judges asked the CJEU to rule on whether placement in the country’s two land-border transit zones constitutes detention, among other questions.

The Court first held that detaining the persons concerned in that transit zone must be regarded as a detention measure. According to the Court, the conditions prevailing in the Röszke transit zone amount to a deprivation of liberty, inter alia because the persons concerned cannot lawfully leave that zone of their own free will in any direction whatsoever. In particular, they may not leave that zone for Serbia since such an attempt (i) would be considered unlawful by the Serbian authorities and would therefore expose them to penalties and (ii) might result in their losing any chance of obtaining refugee status in Hungary.

The Court held that neither an applicant for international protection nor a third-country national who is the subject of a return decision may be detained solely on the ground that he or she cannot meet his or her own needs. The Court added that EU law precludes an applicant for international protection or a third-country national who is the subject of a return decision from being detained without the prior adoption of a reasoned decision ordering that detention and without the need for and proportionality of such a measure having been examined.

Lastly, the Court held that the lawfulness of a detention measure, such as the detention of a person in a transit zone, must be amenable to judicial review. Moreover, if, following its review, the national court considers that the detention measure at issue is contrary to EU law, that court must be able to substitute its decision for that of the administrative authority which adopted the measure and order the immediate release of the persons concerned, or possibly an alternative measure to detention.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

About the transit zone as an integral part of the Hungarian government’s refugee and asylum policy:

Tóth, Judit: Hungary at the border of populism and asylum, in Sergio Carrera – Marco Stefan (eds.) Fundamental Rights Challenges in Border Controls and Expulsion of Irregular Immigrants in the European Union. Complaint Mechanisms and Access to Justice (Routledge, 2020)

Nagy, Boldizsár: From Reluctance to Total Denial. Asylum Policy in Hungary 2015–2018, in Vladislava Stoyanova – Eleni Karageorgiou (eds.) The New Asylum and Transit Countries in Europe during and in the Aftermath of the 2015/2016 Crisis (Brill, 2019)

Bernát, A. et al.: Borders and the Mobility of Migrants in Hungary, Ceaseval Research on the Common European Asylum System, 29 (2019) http://ceaseval.eu/publications/29_WP4_Hungary.pdf

Witold Klaus et al.: Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Central European Countries. Reality, Politics and the Creation of Fear in Societies, in Helmut Kury – Slawomir Redo (eds.) Refugees and Migrants in Law and Policy Challenges and Opportunities for Global Civic Education (Springer, 2018)

*Act citation /year and number

Judgment in Joined Cases C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU FMS and Others v Országos Idegenrendeszeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Országos Idegenrendeszeti Főigazgatóság

Enacted by

Court of Justice of the European Union

Official link to the text of the act

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&lgrec=hu&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-924%252F19&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=8834245

Name of the act/s*

Judgment in Case C-78/18 Commission v Hungary

Subject area

non-governmental organizations, freedom of association, transparency

Brief description of the contents of the act

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice upheld the action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the European Commission against that Member State. The Court held that, by imposing obligations of registration, declaration and publication on certain categories of civil society organisations directly or indirectly receiving support from abroad exceeding a certain threshold and providing for the possibility of applying penalties to organisations that do not comply with those obligations, Hungary had introduced discriminatory and unjustified restrictions with regard to both the organisations at issue and the persons granting them such support.

The Court held, in the first place, that the transactions covered by the Transparency Law fell within the scope of the concept of ‘movements of capital’ and that the law in question constitutes a restrictive measure of a discriminatory nature. In addition, the measures which the law lays down are such as to create a climate of distrust with regard to those associations and foundations. Consequently, the obligations of registration, declaration and publication and the penalties provided for under the Transparency Law, viewed together, constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital, prohibited under Article 63 TFEU.

In the second place, the Court examined whether the provisions of the Transparency Law complied with the Charter. The Court concluded that the right to freedom of association, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to the protection of personal data were violated because the provisions of the Transparency Law could not be justified by any of the objectives of general interest which Hungary relied upon.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

Virág Molnár: Civil Society in an Illiberal Democracy. Government-Friendly NGOs, “Foreign Agents,” and Uncivil Publics, in Balázs Trencsényi – János Mátyás Kovács (eds.) Brave New Hungary. Mapping the “System of National Cooperation” (Lexington Books, 2019)

*Act citation /year and number

Judgment in Case C-78/18 Commission v Hungary

Enacted by

Court of Justice of the European Union

Official link to the text of the act

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=227569&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=8836956

Name of the act/s*

Decision of the Hungarian Constitutional Court in case no. II/313/2019 (public, but not yet published in the Official Gazette)

Subject area

media freedom

Brief description of the contents of the act

The qualified minority of MPs challenged government decree no 229/2018. (XII. 5.) declaring the acquisition of the certain media companies by the Central European Press and Media Foundation a matter of national strategic importance.

The Constitutional Court weighed two constitutional values. On the one hand, the Court noted that the declaration of a certain acquisition by the government a matter of national strategic importance belongs to competence of the executive which can be subjected only to limited judicial review. On the other hand, the Court opined that media pluralism as a constitutional value is not as strongly protected by the Fundamental Law as a fundamental right and the petitioners did not prove that media pluralism would be seriously undermined in Hungary. Consequently, the Constitutional Court concluded that the challenged government decree was constitutional.

Comment

Central European Press and Media Foundation (KESMA) was established in Hungary, and almost immediately, most of the media owners that were considered by public opinion as affiliated or sympathetic to the Hungarian government transferred the ownership rights of their media holdings to it. According to a report by Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom drawn up at the request of the European Commission, it aggravates the already high risk to media pluralism in the country.

Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any)

Brogi, Elda et al. : Assessing Certain Recent Developments in the Hungarian Media Market Through the Prism of the Media Pluralism Monitor, Research Project Report 2019/01, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom - Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/64284/Hungarian_media_market.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

*Act citation /year and number

Decision of the Hungarian Constitutional Court in case no. II/313/2019 (public, but not yet published in the Official Gazette)

Enacted by

Constitutional Court of Hungary

Official link to the text of the act

https://alkotmanybirosag.hu/uploads/2020/06/sz_ii_313_2019-.pdf

Name of the act/s*

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 May 2020 in the case of Mándli and Others v Hungary

Subject area

freedom of expression, parliament

Brief description of the contents of the act

The case concerned the suspension of the applicants’ Parliament accreditation as journalists.

The Court found in particular that the applicants, journalists working for various media outlets, had been reporting on a matter of public interest – alleged illicit payments linked to the National Bank. Their accreditation to work in parliament had been suspended after they had tried to interview deputies outside the designated areas for such work.

While acknowledging the right of parliaments to regulate conduct on their premises, the Court found that the applicants had no mechanism to appeal against the suspension of their accreditation. The sanction against them had thus not been accompanied by sufficient safeguards, resulting in a breach of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression).

*Act citation /year and number

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 May 2020 in the case of Mándli and Others v Hungary

Enacted by

European Court of Human Rights

Official link to the text of the act

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-202540

Osservatorio sulle fonti

Rivista telematica registrata presso il Tribunale di Firenze (decreto n. 5626 del 24 dicembre 2007). ISSN 2038-5633.

L’Osservatorio sulle fonti è stato riconosciuto dall’ANVUR come rivista scientifica e collocato in Classe A.

Contatti

Per qualunque domanda o informazione, puoi utilizzare il nostro form di contatto, oppure scrivici a uno di questi indirizzi email:

Direzione scientifica: direzione@osservatoriosullefonti.it
Redazione: redazione@osservatoriosullefonti.it

Il nostro staff ti risponderà quanto prima.

© 2017 Osservatoriosullefonti.it. Registrazione presso il Tribunale di Firenze n. 5626 del 24 dicembre 2007 - ISSN 2038-5633