Seite 34 [34]
OCR
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°
