Oldal 425 [425]
THE ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OF LEGISLATION
unconstitutionality was based on the following reasons: it was unlawful to put the
general debate on the bill on the agenda, the committees’ recommendations were
missing or formal, the members of parliament only had a few hours to read and
study the legislative text and to form a well-founded opinion on both the concept
of the act and its specific provisions.
In Decision No. 6/2013 on the constitutional review of the Church Act No. 2,
the Constitutional Court confirmed that “a legislative procedure that sets aside
and violates the guarantee provisions of the Rules of Procedure is also capable
of undermining the legitimacy of the decision of an otherwise legally formed
parliamentary majority; moreover, its regular occurrence devalues the institution
of parliamentarism itself. Therefore, an act enacted contrary to an essential
provision of the Rules of Procedure violates Articles B (1),!3 4 (1) and 5 (7) of the
Fundamental Law, is invalid under public law, which gives rise to the annulment
of the act, even with retroactive effect to the date of its publication, provided that
this does not cause a serious breach of legal certainty.”
The Constitutional Court established in this case that the provisions of the
Rules of Procedure in question, i.e. the rules on the agenda of the meeting of the
Parliament, including the prior notification of the proposal for its agenda, are
considered as guarantees of the exercise of democratic power and of the activities
of the members of parliament to be carried out in the public interest, therefore
their breach is considered to be such a serious procedural defect which renders
the law invalid under public law.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the inclusion of the bill on Church Act
No. 2 on the agenda did not comply with the guarantees provided by the Rules of
Procedure. In the present case, not even a whole day (only a few hours) elapsed
between the submission of the bill, its discussion at meetings of committees and
its recommendation by the committees, and the discussion in the plenary of the
Parliament. This, in itself, was enough to deprive the members of parliament of the
opportunity to familiarize themselves with the legislation to the extent necessary
for the responsible exercise of their parliamentary rights.
The Constitutional Court ruled on the one hand that the timing of the
submission of the bill, its preparation by the committees and its inclusion on the
agenda failed to ensure the conditions for a substantive discussion. However, on
the other hand, it established that there was no specific provision of the Rules of
Hungary is an independent and democratic State governed by the rule of law.
The rights and obligations of Members of Parliament shall be equal, they shall carry out
their duties in the public interest, and they may not be given instructions in that regard.
Parliament shall establish its rules of procedure and debate within the framework of its
House Rules, to be adopted by a majority of two-thirds of the votes of the Members of
Parliament present.
+ 423 +