Page 424 [424]
OCR
ISTVÁN STUMPE Procedure. Pursuant to Section 107 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, proposal for a last minute amendment may be submitted in connection with any — previously voted — provision, if the voted provision is not in accordance with [A] the constitution or [B] another law, [C] any provision of the bill already voted, or [D] any provision of the bill not affected by the amendment. In Decision No. 164/2011. (XII. 20.), the Constitutional Court established that the proposal for the last minute amendment in question resulted in a conceptual change concerning the essential regulatory issues of the bill, and its adoption went beyond the scope of incoherence contained in Section 107 of the Rules of Procedure". Through this provision of the Rules of Procedure, Sections 2 (1) and (2) and Section 20 (2) of the Constitution, the procedural rule guaranteeing the exercise of democratic power and the activity of the members of parliament in the public interest, were also violated. I also consider it as an important statement in this decision that, “in order to protect the legitimacy of the democratic exercise of power, it is ultimately the task of the Constitutional Court to enforce compliance with the basic rules of law and order that ensure a reasonable discussion of public affairs.” Due to the serious infringement of procedural requirement detailed above, the Constitutional Court annulled the Church Act No. 1 in its entirety the day after publication (ex nunc). THE VICTORY OF EXCEPTIONAL RULES — THE CHURCH ACT IN THE SECOND ROUND Subsequently, the Parliament enacted Act CCVI of 2011 on the Status of Churches, Religious Denominations and Religious Communities (Church Act No. 2).” Seventeen churches filed constitutional complaints against this act with the Constitutional Court, and the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights initiated proceedings for ex post review. The majority of the petitioners challenged the Church Act No. 2 on substantive grounds, but there was also a motion that again alleged serious infringements of the procedural requirements and asked for the annulment of the entire Church Act No. 2. The alleged procedural "According to the position of the Constitutional Court, an incoherence that violates the requirement of normative clarity arises when there is serious uncertainty regarding the determination of the normative content of certain interrelated legal provisions, even with the help of multi-disciplinary legal interpretation. The announcement on the Constitutional Court Decision 1 was published on 19 December 2011 and it was published in the Hungarian Gazette the next day, on 20 December 2011. The proposal on the Church Act was submitted by the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights on 21 December 2011. + 422 +
