Oldal 379 [379]
HUMAN DIGNITY AND ‘ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY’ IN TIME OF CRISIS
“[...] nobody has the right to poverty and homelessness, this condition is not
part of the right to human dignity” which means that people living in neediness
or at streets shall not be protected by the right to human dignity, they do not
share the value of equal dignity. Nine constitutional court justices think that
homeless persons shall be punished if they do not cooperate with the state —
by which they were left behind earlier, when the same state missed to fulfil its
obligation for social care. These justices state that the enjoyment of fundamental
rights is dependent on the fulfilment of constitutional duties of the person, which
characterised the state-socialist rights regime before 1989. The majority holds that,
“according to the Fundamental Law, human dignity is the dignity of an individual
living in a society and bearing the responsibility of social co-existence.” This
attitude establishes the misuse of solidarity, and it means a complete disruption
with the dignity-interpretation of 1990’s, the core of which was that a person’s
dignity was inviolable irrespective of development or conditions, or fulfilment
of human potential. Based on these most important fundamental rights which
formed the foundation of a person’s legal status, the Constitution did not permit
the revocation or restriction of any part of the legal position already attained by
a human being.”
The Seventh Amendment constitutionalised the Orban-government’s anti¬
immigration policy, which is undermining again the value of dignity, (international
and societal) solidarity and humanity as well. According to article XIV of the
Fundamental Law, ‘No foreign population shall be settled in Hungary. [...] A non¬
Hungarian national shall not be entitled to asylum if he or she arrived in the
territory of Hungary through any country where he or she was not persecuted
or directly threatened with persecution.’ The political context of these measures
is the increasing hostility towards refugees and national non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) helping them, which was triggered by the government.”
The Constitutional Court in its decision 3/2019. (III. 7.) AB also decided about
the constitutionality of certain elements of the Stop Soros legislative package, and
ruled that the criminalization of ‘facilitating illegal immigration’ does not violate
the Fundamental Law. The Court again refers to the constitutional requirement
to protect Hungary’s sovereignty and constitutional identity to justify this clear
violation of freedom of association, freedom of expression hiding behind the alleged
2 This position of the Constitutional Court has first been formulated in its decision 23/1990
AB on the death penalty, and again in decision 64/1991 AB on abortion. See, for instance,
the summary of the later decision, http://www.codices.coe.int/NXT/gateway.dll/CODICES/
precis/eng/eur/hun/hun-1991-s-003?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0.
33 Gábor Halmai, Hungary Anti-European Immigration Laws’ (4 November 2015) available
at <http://www.iwm.at/transit/transit-online/hungarys-anti-european-immigration-laws/>
accessed 12 February 2020.
+ 377 +