Az Alkotmánybíróság döntései 2015. június 21. és szeptember 20. között

Absztrakt

The Constitutional Court (CC) decided 77 cases between 21 June and 20 September, most of them (60) in 5-member chambers. There were 8 decisions that found a body of law unconstitutional. The decisions reached in plenary session were rarely unanimous: out of the 17 cases only 2 were reached without any dissenting opinions. One decision found an act unconstitutional. According to the legislation the double surname was allowed to be registered with hyphen even when the double surname was not the result of marriage. According to Hungarian grammar there are two types of double surname: one which is a result of marriage and it is written with hyphen. The other type used to indicate the connection to a certain territory or town beside the second surname and is written without a hyphen (usually when a noble family had more properties in different parts of the country and later the different branches of the family used the name of the property they owned to differentiate themselves form the other branches within the family). After a regulation in 1952 the communist state forbade the registration of the second type of double surname and double surnames without hyphen were not allowed. As a result of the 1952 regulation two brothers born two years apart had different surnames, one with the other one without hyphen. This was the particular case in connection with which a judge turned to the CC. The CC found that the legislation in question is unconstitutional, because it puts unnecessary restriction on a person’s name (by changing the traditional name of the family). The state has mainly registered tasks with birth certificate and it can regulate how a name is written according to this task. The state can also restrict the right to name in defence of one’s dignity. But in this case none of the above applies, therefore the law is unconstitutional.

In another case the CC ruled it unconstitutional that the 1952 Act on Civil Procedure does not regulate how (in what format) a court of last instance should reject a motion to turn to ECJ suggested by at least one of the parties concerned in a civil procedure. According to the CC it violates the right to fair trial.

The CC found it also against fair trial and the right to property that an act of parliament (on land property) failed to rule on compensation and possible procedure in connection with those long term (20 year) leases this same act annulled.

The CC also made a decision in connection with the right to assembly. A (basically far right) movement notified the police on its public assembly – in compliance with the 1989 Act on Freedom of Assembly – approx. one year prior to its planned date. The police denied its assent due to “possible severe danger”. The court later ruled the notification was untimely but the movement can notify the police some time later. The CC ruled the court’s decision is unconstitutional because it contradicts the Act on Freedom of Assembly and the Act on Civil Procedure. This contradiction is so severe it also violates the right to fair trial. The CC also mentioned that it raised questions whether the court with its ruling created a new restriction on the right to assembly. However, the CC decided not to answer this question (and only answered the question).