Oldal 429 [429]
THE ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OF LEGISLATION
must comply during the amendment of the Fundamental Law. All this was stated
within the framework of the requirements of invalidity under public law.
In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, there can be no unlimited
power. Accordingly, the constitutional amending authority cannot have unlimited
power, either in procedural or substantive terms. From the cases of invalidity
under public law discussed above, it is clear that the respective legislature with a
two-thirds majority necessarily fills the powers at its disposal, and even sometimes
goes beyond that. It remained a question in what direction the Constitutional
Court was going further along the way of invalidity under public law in the context
of a decision declaring the Transitional Provisions invalid under public law.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
The Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law settled, beyond any doubt, the
constitutional debates over the constitutionality of constitutional amendments.
The constitutional amending power made it clear that the Constitutional Court
was not entitled to review the substance of constitutional amendments but, at the
same time, it authorized the justices to examine the constitutional amendments
on procedural grounds. It was a milestone also in the sense that it annulled the
decisions of the Constitutional Court delivered before 1 January 2012, while
maintaining their legal effect.
The Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law was the subject of
criticism both at home and abroad. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights
(Ombudsman) asked the Constitutional Court to declare many provisions of the
Fourth Amendment invalid under public law and to annul them. The applicant
sought a declaration of invalidity under public law and the annulment of the
contested provisions due to an internal incoherence within the Fundamental
Law and with reference to the violation of the unity of the Fundamental Law.
In its Decision No. 12/2013. (V. 24.), the Constitutional Court did not see any
way to establish invalidity under public law, in this respect it rejected and in
other respects it denied the application. Four judges of the Constitutional Court
attached concurring opinion to the majority decision and another four dissenting
opinions, it can be said that in fact the decision did not have a majority reasoning.
The majority of the Constitutional Court changed its opinion/point of view
adopted in Decision No. 61/2011. (VII. 13.) concerning the potential examination
of the content of constitutional amendments, saying that in contrast to the former
Constitution, which did not contain a provision to that effect, the Fundamental
Law clearly takes a position on the issue (it is true that it is in the amendment under
review!). As the majority of the Constitutional Court considered the Ombudsman’s
+ 427 +