Page 379 [379]
OCR
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 antiimmigration 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 nonHungarian 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
