Interaction of European Union law and Hungarian constitutional law

   The article examines the history and current state of interaction between EU law and Hungarian constitutional law. Approaches to such interaction that have developed at the national and supranational levels are consistently studied. The issues of the general model of interaction between international law and domestic law in Hungary, which is based on dualistic traditions, are touched upon within the framework of the studied issues. The process of the State’s accession to the European Union and the corresponding constitutional amendments are considered: the provision on the granting of competence; the national identity clause; the rules of cooperation between the Parliament and the Government; clarification of the status and competence of the National Bank; new electoral rules; as well as constitutional amendments adopted later as part of the implementation of the EU Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. The excessive politicization of the process of the state’s accession to the European Union, which must comply with strict legal criteria for the existence of stable institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule of law and human rights, was noted. Special attention is paid to the Basic Law of 2010, the adoption of which marks a phase of axiological confrontation between the constitutional order of Hungary and the fundamental values of the Union. In this regard, the European Commission appeals to the EU Court with numerous lawsuits aimed at solving the point problems of a more general situation of departure from European values. Hungary, along with Poland, also becomes the first State in respect of which a procedure was initiated for a clear threat of serious violation of values. This conflict has become one of the reasons for the creation of new legal mechanisms related to the protection of such values: the framework procedure for combating systemic threats to the rule of law; the mechanism of the rule of law and the mechanism of conditionality by the rule of law. It is concluded that the nature and degree of political pressure exerted by the European Commission against Hungary casts doubt on the very expediency of the latter’s participation in the European integration project.

1. Evropejskij Sud po pravam cheloveka i Venecianskaja komissija: o pravovom gosudarstve (European Court of Human Rights and Venice Commission: on the State of Law) / T. Y. Khabrieva, A. I. Kovler, E. A. Fokin, et al.; ed. by T. Y. Khabrieva. М.: PH «Jurisprudence», 2021. 528 p. (In Russian).

2. Kapustin A. Ya., Kovler A. I., et al. Praktika rassmotrenija mezhgosudarstvennyh zhalob v mezhdunarodnyh sudah: istorija voprosa i perspektivy (Inter-State Applications in International Courts: History and Prospects) // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel’stva i sravnitel’nogo pravovedenija. 2020. No. 6 (85). P. 124–127. (In Russian).

3. Kelzen G. Chistoe uchenie o prave (Pure Theory of Law). St. Petersburg: Alef-Press, 2015. 542 p. (In Russian).

4. Lebedeva I. I. «Mehanizm obuslovlennosti verhovenstvom prava»: novyj vitok prinuditelnyh mer ES protiv Polshi i Vengrii (“The Mechanism of Conditionality by the Rule of Law”: A New Round of EU Coercive Measures against Poland and Hungary) // Evrazijskij juridicheskij zhurnal. 2022. No. 1 (164). P. 34–38. (In Russian).

5. Lebedeva I. I. Vzaimodejstvie prava Evropejskogo Sojuza i konstitucionnogo prava gosudarstv-chlenov: pljuralisticheskie podhody (Interaction of European Union law and Constitutional law of the Member States: Pluralistic Approaches) // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel’stva i sravnitel’nogo pravovedenija. 2021. No. 3. P. 19–35. (In Russian).

6. Lebedeva I. I. Cennosti Evropejskogo Sojuza: ponjatie, pravovaja priroda i vlijanie na konstitucionnoe pravo suverennyh gosudarstv (EU Values: Concept, Legal Nature and Impact on the Constitutional Law of Sovereign States) // Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel’stva i sravnitel’nogo pravovedenija. 2022. T. 18. No. 2. P. 130–147. (In Russian).

7. Lukjanov F. E. Viktor Orban: Ot ultraliberalizma k evroskepticizmu. Jevoljucija politicheskogo lidera (Viktor Orban: from ultra-liberalism to euroscepticism. Evolution of a political leader) // APE. 2017. No. 3. P. 12–39. (In Russian).

8. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie kak faktor integracii (International Justice as a Factor of Integration) / T. Y. Khabrieva, A. I. Kovler, A. M. Belyalova etc. Moskow: IZAK, Norma, INFRA-M, 2019. 192 p. (In Russian).

9. Moiseev A. A. Sootnoshenie suvereniteta i nadgosudarstvennosti v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave: v kontekste globalizacii (The correlation of sovereignty and supranationality in modern international law: in the context of globalization). Moskva, 2007. 360 p. (In Russian).

10. Entin K. V. Pravo Evropejskogo Sojuz skvoz prizmu praktiki Suda Evropejskogo Sojuza (The law of the European Union through the prism of the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union). Moskva : Statut, 2020. 324 p. (In Russian).

11. 1949. évi XX. törvény - A magyar köztársaság alkotmánya (Law XX on Constitution of the People’s Republic of Hungary of 1949).

12. 1989. évi XXXI. törvény az Alkotmány módosításáról (Law XXXI on amending the Constitution of 1989).

13. 2007. évi CLXVII. törvény a Magyar Köztársaság Alkotmányáról szóló 1949. évi XX. törvény módosításáról (Act CLXVII on the Constitution of the Republic of Hungary of 2007 amending the Law XX on the Constitution of the Republic of Hungary of 1949).

14. Barroso J. M., State of the Union 2012 Address Plenary Session of the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 12 September 2012.

15. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union // OJ C 202, 7. 6. 2016, p. 389–405.

16. CJEC (Grand Chamber). Case C-119/05. Ministero dell’Industria, del Commercio e dell’Artigianato v Lucchini SpA. Judgment of 18 July 2007.

17. CJEC (Grand Chamber). Case C-213/07. Michaniki AE v Ethniko Symvoulio Radiotileorasis and Ypourgos Epikrateias. Judgment of 16 December 2008.

18. CJEC. Case 106/77. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Pretura di Susa, Italy. Judgment of 9 March 1978.

19. CJEC. Case 11-70. Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Judgment of 17 December 1970.

20. CJEC. Case 26-62. NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tariefcommissie, Pays-Bas. Judgment of 5 February 1963.

21. CJEC. Case 6-64. Flaminio Costa v E. N. E. L. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Giudice conciliatore di Milano, Italy. Judgment of 15 July 1964.

22. CJEC. Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm. Judgment of 22 November 2005.

23. CJEC. Case C-285/98. Tanja Kreil v Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Judgment of 11 January 2000.

24. CJEC. Opinion 1/91. Opinion delivered pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 228 (1) of the Treaty – Draft agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the countries of the European Free Trade Association, on the other, relating to the creation of the European Economic Area. Judgment of 14 December 1991.

25. CJEU (Full Court). Case C-621/18. Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Judgment of 10 December 2018.

26. CJEU (Grand Chamber). Case C-202/11. Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen, Belgium. Judgment of 16 April 2013.

27. CJEU (Grand Chamber). Case C-399/11. Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal. Judgment of 26 February 2013.

28. CJEU (Grand Chamber). Case C-416/10. Jozef Križan and Others v Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia. Judgment of the Court of 15 January 2013.

29. CJEU (Second Chamber). Case C-208/09. Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann von Wien. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria. Judgment of 22 December 2010.

30. CJEU (Second Chamber). Case C-391/09. Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija and Others. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Vilniaus miesto 1 apylinkės teismas, Lithuania. Judgment of 12 May 2011.

31. CJEU (Third Chamber). Case C-314/08. Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu. Judgment of 19 November 2009.

32. CJEU. Case C-409/06. Winner Wetten GmbH v Bürgermeisterin der Stadt Bergheim. Judgement of 8 September 2010.

33. Cloots E. National Identity, Constitutional Identity, and Sovereignty in the EU. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy. 2. (2016). P. 82-98.

34. Closa C., Kochenov D. Reinforcing the Rule of Law Oversight in the European Union, in Strengthening the Rule of Law in Europe: From a Common Concept to Mechanisms of Implementation. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2015. 339 p.

35. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council “A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law” (COM/2014/0158 final). Brussels, 11. 3. 2014.

36. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2020 Rule of Law Report, The rule of law situation in the European Union (COM/2020/580 final). Brussels, 30. 9. 2020.

37. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2021 Rule of Law Report, The rule of law situation in the European Union (COM(2021) 700 final). Brussels, 20. 7. 2021.

38. Constitutional Court, judgment of 7 March 1964, No 14, 1964-I, Foro Italiano 465.

39. Decision 1053/E/2005. AB határozat (Constitutional Court of Hungary). Budapest, 16. 06. 2006.

40. Decision 143/2010. (VII. 14.) AB határozat (Constitutional Court of Hungary). Budapest, 12. 07. 2010.

41. Decision 22/2016. (XII. 5.) AB határozat. (Constitutional Court of Hungary). Budapest, 30. 11. 2016.

42. Decision 4/1997 (I. 22.) AB 46 határozat (Constitutional Court of Hungary). Budapest, 21. 01. 1997.

43. Decision 61/B/2005. AB határozat. (Constitutional Court of Hungary). Budapest, 29. 11. 2006.

44. Decision AB határozat 4/1997. (I. 22.) (Constitutional Court of Hungary). Budapest, 21. 01. 1997.

45. Decision AB határozat, 7/2005 (III. 31) (Constitutional Court of Hungary). Budapest, 29. 03. 2005.

46. Decision of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Court 5.K.20. 631/2010/4.

47. Dezső M., Vincze A. Magyar alkotmányosság az európai integrációban’ összes példány (Венгерский конституционализм и европейская интеграция). Budapest. HVG-ORAC. 2006. 437 O.

48. EU law expert: Throwing Hungary out would ‘fan the flames of populism’ URL: https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/interview/eu-law-expert-throwing-hungary-out-would-fan-the-flames-of-populism/ (Accessed: 21. 09. 2022).

49. Gábor H. National(ist) constitutional identity?: Hungary’s road to abuse constitutional pluralism. Working Paper, EUI LAW, 2017/08. 17 p.

50. International Law and Domestic Legal Systems: Incorporation, Transformation, and Persuasion ed. by D. Shelton. Oxford University Press, 2011. 666 p.

51. Jakab A. A magyar jogrendszer szerkezete. Budapest Pécs: Dialóg.Campus Kiadó, 2007. 227 o.

52. Javaslat módosítási szándék megfogalmazásához a Törvényalkotási bizottság számára a pedofil bűnelkövetőkkel szembeni szigorúbb fellépésről, valamint a gyermekek védelme érdekében egyes törvények módosításáról szóló T/16365.

53. Luxembourg foreign minister wants Hungary out of EU URL: https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/luxembourg-foreign-minister-wants-hungary-out-of-eu/ Accessed: 21. 09. 2022).

54. Magyarország Alaptörvénye (2011. április 25.). Magyar Közlöny. 2018. évi 100. Szám (The Fundamental Law Of Hungary of 25 April 2011. Hungarian Gazette. No 100. 2018.).

55. Mangiameli S. The European Union and the Identity of Member States. L’Europe en Formation. No. 369. 2013. P. 151-168.

56. National Constitutions in European and Global Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law (National Reports) ed. by A. Albi, S. Bardutzky. Asser, Springer, 2019.

57. Note à M. Jean Rey, Président du Groupe Juridique et à M. Caron, Président du Groupe du Marché Intérieur (HAC. BAC.371/1991.620).

58. Opinion on the new Constitution of Hungary adopted by the Venice Commission at its 87th Plenary Session (CDL-AD(2011)016-e). Venice, 17-18 June 2011.

59. Oxford Handbook of EU law edited by D. Chalmers, A. Arnull. Oxford University Press, 2015. 950 p.

60. Pernice I. Multilevel Constitutionalism and the Treaty of Amsterdam: European Constitution-Making Revisited? Common Market Law Review Volume 36, Issue 4 (1999). P. 703–750.

61. Pernice I. Multilevel Constitutionalism in the European Union. Walter Hallstein-Institut – Paper 5/02. 15 p.

62. Pernice I. The Treaty of Lisbon: Multilevel Constitutionalism in Action. Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 15, No. 3/2009. P. 349-407.

63. Proposal for a Council Decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law. COM/2017/0835 final. Brussels, 20. 12. 2017.

64. Proposal for a Council Decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the rule of law. ST 12266 2018 REV 1. Brussels, 20. 09. 2018.

65. Rech W. Some remarks on the EU’s action on the erosion of the rule of law in Poland and Hungary. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, Volume 26, 2018 – Issue 3: Special Issue: Erosion of the Rule of Law in East Central Europe. P. 334-345.

66. Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget // OJ L 433I, 22. 12. 2020. P. 1–10.

67. Rule of law framework URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-framework_en (Дата обращения: 21. 09. 2022).

68. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 // OJ C 306, 17. 12. 2007. P. 1–271.