Page 429 [429]
OCR
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 +
