Page 425 [425]
OCR
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 +
