Search

Search Results

• The Problem of Defining Criminal Norms Precisely. The „Clarity of Norms” Doctrine in the Decisions of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and in Judicial Practice

  37-59

  Krisztina Ficsor

  Views:

  328

  The principles of legality in criminal law determine numerous requirements both for the legislator creating criminal statutes and for judges as well who decide criminal cases. One of the most important demands of legality is the principle of maximum certainty according to which the state must establish a system of criminal law in which the wording of the statutes are clear, precise and understandable for the citizens; and judges are able to interpret criminal rules without making arbitrary decisions. In the Hungarian legal system the demands of maximum certainty are represented by the principle of nullum crimen sine lege. This principle is called the „clarity of norms” doctrine in the practice of the Constitutional Court of Hungary (HCC) which is entitled to strike down criminal statutes which do not meet its requirements. The aim of this paper is to argue for the claim that the „clarity of norms doctrine” and the concept of certainty in criminal law is based mostly on considerations about the plain meaning of words and texts and lack a coherent theoretical background in the decisions of the HCC and in judicial practice as well. The author offers a more complex and coherent conception of certainty stating that its requirements relate not only to linguistic considerations but also to thinking over the moral and political values of criminal law as well.

• Risks and Adverse Effects: Decisions of the Italian Constitutional Court on the Compulsory COVID-19 Vaccination

  102-127

  Attila Horváth

  Álmos Ungvári

  Views:

  208

  In recent years, several judicial and constitutional court decisions have been handed down worldwide on the legality and constitutionality of the fundamental rights restrictive measures (including compulsory vaccination) imposed during the pandemic. Aside from Austria, Italy has imposed compulsory vaccination more widely than any other European country; moreover, the lack of vaccination has made it impossible for citizens to live their daily lives to such an extent that some scholars have even written of de facto compulsory vaccination. In December 2022, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled in three judgments against the petitions related to compulsory vaccination. After outlining the legal context and the scholars’ positions on mandatory Covid vaccination, this paper examines these decisions, focusing on the arguments on which the Court saw justification for compulsory vaccination.

• Rule of Law – Active State: Reconstructing the Conception of the Rule of Law in Zoltán Magyary’s Theory

  9-26

  József Szabadfalvi

  Views:

  170

  Zoltán Magyary was an internationally recognised Hungarian professor of law who carried out research in modern theories of administration and state theories. Defending the values of the rule of law and taking action against the anomalies of legal formalism were among his major scientific goals. According to him, one of the most important functions of a legal system is the protection of human rights, therefore he accepted the view that courts must have the authority to review administrative decisions. At the same time, he stated that the effective and productive functioning of administrative institutions and the executive power is a priority in a legal system. Due to the fact that he did not provide a complete analysis of the correlation between the rule of law and the effective functioning of administrative institutions, he opened the possibility for posterity to give various and different interpretations of the issue.

• Effects of the State Aid Soft Law on Beneficiaries: Annotation on an order of the General Court

  118-127

  Péter Staviczky

  Views:

  164

  The European Commission issues guidelines and other soft law instruments to define the compatibility conditions of State aid to be granted by Member States with the internal market. Although the soft law is only binding on the Commission it has not negligible indirect effect on the Member States state aid policy and thereby on other policies. So far it was not clear how much beneficiaries could find remedy at European Courts against the soft law issued by the Commission. The present article gives a description on the adoption of the new energy and environmental aid guidelines with the focus on the conditions related to aid to operating aid to energy generation from renewable energy sources in the context of the State Aid modernization initiative. A comparison to the previous rules was also made. Thereafter the article summarizes an order of the General Court issued in a procedure where an applicant has initiated action for annulment of the guidelines. The article also tries to draw some conclusions about the possibilities and limits of beneficiaries and Member States to question the legality of State aid soft law instruments at European Courts.

• Judicial Review in Emergency Situations: the Relevant Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

  200-218

  Gábor Mészáros

  Views:

  128

  Emergencies are mostly sudden, and in most cases states need special measures to deal with them. For this reason liberal democracies have standing constitutional or special legal powers to derogate human rights for the sake of order. Those democracies that do not have such powers, use impromptu ones. It is possible for authoritarian governments to abuse emergency powers in order to stay in power, to derogate human rights and to silence the opposition. Therefore it is essential for a liberal democracy to have strict limits for the duration, circumstance and scope of emergency powers. There are human rights regimes (for example: the European Convention on Human Rights) which have to respect the member states’ duty and responsibility in such cases. This article tries to examine this special case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The question is whether a European Human Rights regime is capable of becoming the guardian of human rights in cases of national emergencies, or the sovereignty of states also means that there is very narrow margin to prove legality above security?