Judicial protection and interpretation of the right to take part in a referendum – an overview of the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court

Csaba Erdös
{"title":"Judicial protection and interpretation of the right to take part in a referendum – an overview of the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court","authors":"Csaba Erdös","doi":"10.25167/osap.1220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper gives an overview of the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court regarding the right to take part in a referendum. This is a fundamental right of political participation, not unlike the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in parliamentary elections. It being a genuine fundamental right, the Constitutional Court interpreted its authentic meaning and stipulated the most important constitutional requirements related to this right. One of the most important requirements was the establishment of a system of remedies, where the final decision on the certification of a question proposed for a referendum must be taken by the Constitutional Court. Parliament fulfilled this legislative requirement and since 1998 the Constitutional Court has controlled the constitutionality of the decisions taken by the National Election Committee on the certification of the referendum questions proposed. The 2013 Act on referendum transferred this competence to the Supreme Court. Since then, the Constitutional Court shall only decide referendum-cases which were submitted with the so-called ‘direct constitutional complaint’, an extraordinary type of constitutional remedy. The present paper compares these two remedy systems introduced for the protection of the right to take part in a referendum.","PeriodicalId":34464,"journal":{"name":"Opolskie Studia AdministracyjnoPrawne","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Opolskie Studia AdministracyjnoPrawne","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25167/osap.1220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court regarding the right to take part in a referendum. This is a fundamental right of political participation, not unlike the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in parliamentary elections. It being a genuine fundamental right, the Constitutional Court interpreted its authentic meaning and stipulated the most important constitutional requirements related to this right. One of the most important requirements was the establishment of a system of remedies, where the final decision on the certification of a question proposed for a referendum must be taken by the Constitutional Court. Parliament fulfilled this legislative requirement and since 1998 the Constitutional Court has controlled the constitutionality of the decisions taken by the National Election Committee on the certification of the referendum questions proposed. The 2013 Act on referendum transferred this competence to the Supreme Court. Since then, the Constitutional Court shall only decide referendum-cases which were submitted with the so-called ‘direct constitutional complaint’, an extraordinary type of constitutional remedy. The present paper compares these two remedy systems introduced for the protection of the right to take part in a referendum.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
司法保护和解释参加公民投票的权利- -匈牙利宪法法院和最高法院的判例概述
本文概述了匈牙利宪法法院和最高法院关于参加公民投票权的判例。这是一项基本的政治参与权,与选举权和作为候选人参加议会选举的权利并无不同。作为一项真正的基本权利,宪法法院解释了其真正含义,并规定了与这项权利有关的最重要的宪法要求。最重要的要求之一是建立一个补救制度,宪法法院必须对提议举行公民投票的问题作出最后决定。议会满足了这一立法要求,自1998年以来,宪法法院一直控制着全国选举委员会就认证拟议的公民投票问题所作决定的合宪性。2013年《公民投票法》将这一权限移交给了最高法院。从那时起,宪法法院只能对提交所谓“直接宪法申诉”的公民投票案件作出裁决,这是一种特殊类型的宪法补救措施。本文比较了为保护公民投票权而引入的这两种补救制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
The need for protection of environmental defenders from digital intimidation: an analysis of Article 3(8) of the Aarhus Convention An Economic Analysis of Iran’s 2017 Judicial System Reforms: Ways with Long-term Effects to Improve Judicial System’s Litigation Delay Access to justice regarding plans and programmes related to the environment – Polish law in the light of Article 9.3 of the Aarhus Convention Wolność gospodarcza i jej ograniczenia na tle różnych modeli ekonomicznych Zakaz wydawania wiążących poleceń przez radę nadzorczą zarządowi spółki z o.o.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1