Page 34 [34]
VIKTOR ZOLTÁN KAZAI
of European Court of Human Rights judgments." Was it your earlier view that was
overly optimistic, or did something change since then? What is it, do you think,
that prevents the European human rights perspective from taking root in Hungary?
K. B.: Ihe Hungarian context has changed dramatically over the period between
these two quotes. In 1992 Hungarian intellectuals would have thought it provincial
to reject Strasbourg. Members of the political elite of the time had not forgotten
what they rose up against and why they had criticized the previous system. But
now the situation is completely different. It is no longer considered unacceptable
for a country to vocally deviate from the European mainstream.
As far as the criticism geared towards the legislature is concerned, there was
certain resentment on my part. Our comprehensive study in 1992 and the ensuing
legislative amendment package was such a success that the Council of Europe
actually directed all successive candidate countries to us. We were the role model
for how to prepare the ratification of the Convention. However, afterwards, the
government and the Parliament never took the effort to systematically evaluate what
legislative amendments would be necessary in light of Strasbourg jurisprudence.
The ambition to be a model country quickly lapsed.
Coming to those applying the law, I can only say that the main responsibility for
all ails lies with the leadership. While I was secretary of state, I spoke with a lot of
judges and prosecutors and most of them were open towards applying Strasbourg
case-law. However, the Supreme Court unwaveringly stated that no one should
think of applying the Strasbourg jurisprudence, because that is the Constitutional
Court’s competence. Truth be told: the lower court judges were discouraged from
this kind of openness.
Farewell to a political career
V. Z. K.: You were a senior civil servant for seven years, then, in 1997 you changed
careers. In an interview you said: “One comes to enjoy and get used to deciding
certain things. It is wonderful to experience that things are done the way you want
them to be done. It’s not easy to return to science from this position.” Nevertheless
you still decided to leave the Ministry. Apart from the many years you had spent
there, you justified this decision saying that petty interests within the Ministry
had made your work difficult, the prestige of the Ministry of Justice had declined
and a kind of hysteria enveloped criminal law in both politics and within the
government. Had the circumstances been better, would you have continued to work
at the Ministry or were you keen on returning to academia?
K. B.: I did not have nearly as much work under the MDF (Hungarian
Democratic Forum) led government, as I did under the MSZP-SZDSZ (Hungarian
+ 32°