Blasphemy – when causing public scandal – used to be a criminal offence under the first criminal code (1878). The provision, however, was abolished in the early years of the communist regime. At the moment there is no offence like blasphemy: instead of God religious freedom enjoys protection by criminal legislation. In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights the conflicts between the freedom of expression and religion were carefully weighed. In most secular societies religious expression tends to be avoided in public space. Consequently, such expression becomes more and more exceptional. The lack of sensitivity towards religious convictions and sentiments may result in unexpected conflicts. Avoiding or preventing conflicts cannot be considered as surrender if its reason is the respect towards the dignity of a fellow citizen.
" ["hu_HU"]=> string(863) "Blasphemy – when causing public scandal – used to be a criminal offence under the first criminal code (1878). The provision, however, was abolished in the early years of the communist regime. At the moment there is no offence like blasphemy: instead of God religious freedom enjoys protection by criminal legislation. In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights the conflicts between the freedom of expression and religion were carefully weighed. In most secular societies religious expression tends to be avoided in public space. Consequently, such expression becomes more and more exceptional. The lack of sensitivity towards religious convictions and sentiments may result in unexpected conflicts. Avoiding or preventing conflicts cannot be considered as surrender if its reason is the respect towards the dignity of a fellow citizen.
" } ["copyrightHolder"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["title"]=> array(1) { ["hu_HU"]=> string(42) "Véleményszabadság vs. vallásszabadság" } ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["authors"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(Author)#765 (6) { ["_data"]=> array(15) { ["id"]=> int(5815) ["email"]=> string(19) "noreply@ludovika.hu" ["includeInBrowse"]=> bool(true) ["publicationId"]=> int(2673) ["seq"]=> int(1) ["userGroupId"]=> int(235) ["country"]=> string(2) "HU" ["orcid"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(0) "" ["affiliation"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["biography"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["familyName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(7) "Schanda" ["hu_HU"]=> string(7) "Schanda" } ["givenName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(7) "Balázs" ["hu_HU"]=> string(7) "Balázs" } ["preferredPublicName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["submissionLocale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } ["keywords"]=> array(2) { ["hu_HU"]=> array(2) { [0]=> string(21) "freedom of expression" [1]=> string(17) "religious freedom" } ["en_US"]=> array(2) { [0]=> string(21) "freedom of expression" [1]=> string(17) "religious freedom" } } ["subjects"]=> array(0) { } ["disciplines"]=> array(0) { } ["languages"]=> array(0) { } ["supportingAgencies"]=> array(0) { } ["galleys"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(ArticleGalley)#788 (7) { ["_submissionFile"]=> NULL ["_data"]=> array(9) { ["submissionFileId"]=> int(7741) ["id"]=> int(1823) ["isApproved"]=> bool(false) ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["label"]=> string(3) "PDF" ["publicationId"]=> int(2673) ["seq"]=> int(0) ["urlPath"]=> string(0) "" ["urlRemote"]=> string(0) "" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(true) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) }Véleményszabadság vs. emberi méltóság – Egy rejtélyes alaptörvény-módosítás nyomában
The paper examines to what extent the Constitutional Court of Hungary relied – after the Fundamental Law took force – on formerly elaborated justifications and arguments in the course of interpreting the freedom of speech and human dignity. The contents of the text of the Fundamental Law taking force on 1 January 2012 was identical with the text of the previous Constitution. According to Article IX para. (1) of Fundamental Law: everyone shall have the right to freedom of speech.
However, according to the provision incorporated into the fourth amendment of the Fundamental Law, “the right to freedom of speech may not be exercised with the aim of violating the human dignity of others” [Article IX para. (4) of Fundamental Law].
This results in a difference between the text of Article IX of the Fundamental Law and the text of the previous Constitution in interpreting the freedom of speech, namely Article IX para. (4) focuses in particular on personality protection.
The paper attempts to find answers to the question as to why it was necessary to amend the Fundamental Law.
In Decision 7/2014. (III. 7.) AB, the Constitutional Court established that the Fundamental Law only reinforced the interpretation developed in the Constitutional Court’s practice, since, from the very beginning, it has been the cornerstone of the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the freedom of speech that the human dignity of others can restrict the freedom of speech. Contrary to this interpretation of the Constitutional Court, the new law might result in an interpretation that human dignity has a narrower scope than before. According to such an interpretation, the right to human dignity shall be restricted to only a prohibition against inhuman or degrading treatment, as its original content, and shall preclude this right from being interpreted as “a general personality right”.
In another interpretation, with this amendment, the constitution-forming power would have liked to achieve a different interpretation of freedom of expression that provides greater protection of human dignity.
In this paper I make references to the “pro and con” arguments of these alternative ways of interpreting Article IX para. (4) of Fundamental Law.
Between 15 August and 15 December 2015, the Curia of Hungary rendered important decisions in respect of the following fundamental rights issues: right to human dignity and right to respect for one’s reputation [Articles II and VI of the Fundamental Law], right to have access to information of public interest [Article VI, paragraph (2) of the Fundamental Law], right to freedom of peaceful assembly [Article VIII, paragraph (1) of the Fundamental Law], freedom of expression [Article IX, paragraph (1) of the Fundamental Law], freedom to conduct a business [Article XII of the Fundamental Law], prohibition of discrimination [Article XV, paragraph (2) of the Fundamental Law], parents’ right to choose education for their children [Article XVI, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Fundamental Law], the requirement of increased protection for women with regard to their state pension [Article XIX, paragraph (4) of the Fundamental Law], right to have one’s affairs handled fairly by the authorities [Article XXIV, paragraph (1) of the Fundamental Law], right to a fair trial [Article XXVIII, paragraph (1) of the Fundamental Law], right to defence [Article XXVIII, paragraph (3) of the Fundamental Law] and right to seek remedy against judicial decisions [Article XXVIII, paragraph (7) of the Fundamental Law].
" } ["copyrightHolder"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["prefix"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["subtitle"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["title"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(24) "A Kúria gyakorlatából" } ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["authors"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(Author)#789 (6) { ["_data"]=> array(15) { ["id"]=> int(2996) ["email"]=> string(19) "noreply@ludovika.hu" ["includeInBrowse"]=> bool(true) ["publicationId"]=> int(2681) ["seq"]=> int(3) ["userGroupId"]=> int(235) ["country"]=> string(2) "HU" ["orcid"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(0) "" ["affiliation"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["biography"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["familyName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(6) "Berkes" } ["givenName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(7) "Bálint" } ["preferredPublicName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["submissionLocale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } ["keywords"]=> array(1) { ["hu_HU"]=> array(2) { [0]=> string(5) "Curia" [1]=> string(15) "Fundamental Law" } } ["subjects"]=> array(0) { } ["disciplines"]=> array(0) { } ["languages"]=> array(0) { } ["supportingAgencies"]=> array(0) { } ["galleys"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(ArticleGalley)#773 (7) { ["_submissionFile"]=> NULL ["_data"]=> array(9) { ["submissionFileId"]=> int(7751) ["id"]=> int(1828) ["isApproved"]=> bool(false) ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["label"]=> string(3) "PDF" ["publicationId"]=> int(2681) ["seq"]=> int(0) ["urlPath"]=> string(0) "" ["urlRemote"]=> string(0) "" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(true) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) }The Constitutional Court (CC) made 93 decisions between 24 September and 16 December 2015, most of them (81) in 5-member chambers. There were 8 decisions that found a body of law or a regular court’s decision unconstitutional. The decisions reached in plenary session were rarely unanimous: out of 12 cases only 1 was reached without any concurring or dissenting opinions.
One decision found a regulation of the Government unconstitutional, because it was ultra vires. According to the regulation in question any income from “national land” (state property) has to be appropriated for the development of the country or for the increasing of the national budget. According to the Constitution and the 2010 Act on Legislation only Parliament can regulate the appropriation of state property. Therefore the regulation is ultra vires and contradicts the constitution.
In another decision the question was whether the 2011 Act on Local Governments was specific enough to comply with the rule of law. According to the Constitution in some areas a local authority enjoys general competence (therefore can regulate with statutes), while in other areas it may not do anything with statutory authority. The latter applies to offences, which can be regulated locally thus supplementing the statutory law on offences. However, the act that specifies the authority of the local governments has to be specific, especially when the local government is authorized to regulate sanctions. Formerly [CC Decision 38 of 2012] the CC decided that the act in question was ambiguous when it authorized local governments to regulate offences against “peaceful public coexistence”. The Parliament amended the Act on Local Governments but the authorization rule still uses the ambiguous phrase “offences against peaceful public coexistence”. However, this time the CC found that the act complies with the Constitution and decided to – implicitly – overrule its Decision 38 of 2012. The reason was the 4th amendment of the Constitution which authorized local governments to forbid living in public areas (i.e. for homeless). The CC found this amendment applies to other regulatory authorization in connection with offences, so the act cannot be found unambiguous and the local governments can regulate within this broader scope.
Another decision dealt with some aspects of Act V of 2006 on Public Company Information, Company Registration and Winding Up Proceedings. According to the Act in the procedure of officially initiated deregistration the leader of the deregistered company is prohibited from becoming a director or majority member of any company within 5 years. According to the Act the decision of the registry court on deregistration and prohibition is published in the official gazette of the registry, but not delivered to the director concerned personally. The CC found this rule unconstitutional in cases when the company and its director were available for the registry court throughout the procedure. It is against fair trial not to inform the prohibited person about the decision. It also violates the right to appeal since the prohibited person can appeal within 15 days after the decision was published and the appellant cannot justify missing the deadline because the prohibition became known to him later than that.
" } ["copyrightHolder"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["prefix"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["subtitle"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["title"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(83) "Az Alkotmánybíróság döntései (2015. szeptember 24. és december 15. között)" } ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["authors"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(Author)#770 (6) { ["_data"]=> array(15) { ["id"]=> int(3001) ["email"]=> string(19) "noreply@ludovika.hu" ["includeInBrowse"]=> bool(true) ["publicationId"]=> int(2683) ["seq"]=> int(4) ["userGroupId"]=> int(235) ["country"]=> string(2) "HU" ["orcid"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(0) "" ["affiliation"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["biography"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["familyName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(7) "Kovács" } ["givenName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(6) "Virág" } ["preferredPublicName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["submissionLocale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } ["keywords"]=> array(1) { ["hu_HU"]=> array(2) { [0]=> string(20) "Constitutional Court" [1]=> string(18) "Act on Legislation" } } ["subjects"]=> array(0) { } ["disciplines"]=> array(0) { } ["languages"]=> array(0) { } ["supportingAgencies"]=> array(0) { } ["galleys"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(ArticleGalley)#794 (7) { ["_submissionFile"]=> NULL ["_data"]=> array(9) { ["submissionFileId"]=> int(7759) ["id"]=> int(1832) ["isApproved"]=> bool(false) ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["label"]=> string(3) "PDF" ["publicationId"]=> int(2683) ["seq"]=> int(0) ["urlPath"]=> string(0) "" ["urlRemote"]=> string(0) "" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(true) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) }Európai Bíróság: az Egyesült Államok „biztonságos kikötő” adatvédelmi rendszere nem biztosítja az uniós polgárok alapjogainak tiszteletben tartását
Following the revelations made in 2013 by Edward Snowden concerning the activities of the US intelligence services, Maximilian Schrems, an Austrian citizen and a Facebook user, asked the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (Facebook’s European centre is based in Ireland) to prohibit Facebook from continuing transferring his personal data to servers located in the US. He took the view that, in light of these revelations, the law and practice of the US did not offer sufficient protection against surveillance by the public authorities of the data transferred from the EU to that country.
The Court was asked by the High Court of Ireland to rule on whether the Commission’s decision on the adequacy of data protection in the US (the ‘Safe Harbour’ Decision) prevents national data protection authorities from investigating into the actual level of protection in the US of personal data of European citizens.
The Court set out that the Commission failed to demonstrate in the ‘Safe Harbour’ Decision that the US ensures an adequate level of protection of these data. It found that, in the ‘Safe Harbour’ scheme, national security, public interest and law enforcement requirements prevail over the protection of personal data, which can result in indiscriminate and unlimited public interference with the fundamental rights of persons. The Court therefore declared the ‘Safe Harbour’ Decision invalid.
" } ["title"]=> array(1) { ["hu_HU"]=> string(166) "Európai Bíróság: az Egyesült Államok „biztonságos kikötő” adatvédelmi rendszere nem biztosítja az uniós polgárok alapjogainak tiszteletben tartását" } ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["authors"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(Author)#791 (6) { ["_data"]=> array(15) { ["id"]=> int(3002) ["email"]=> string(19) "noreply@ludovika.hu" ["includeInBrowse"]=> bool(true) ["publicationId"]=> int(2686) ["seq"]=> int(5) ["userGroupId"]=> int(235) ["country"]=> string(2) "HU" ["orcid"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(0) "" ["affiliation"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["biography"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["familyName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(9) "Lehóczki" } ["givenName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(7) "Balázs" } ["preferredPublicName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["submissionLocale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } ["keywords"]=> array(1) { ["hu_HU"]=> array(2) { [0]=> string(24) "US intelligence services" [1]=> string(18) "‘Safe Harbour’" } } ["subjects"]=> array(0) { } ["disciplines"]=> array(0) { } ["languages"]=> array(0) { } ["supportingAgencies"]=> array(0) { } ["galleys"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(ArticleGalley)#798 (7) { ["_submissionFile"]=> NULL ["_data"]=> array(9) { ["submissionFileId"]=> int(7761) ["id"]=> int(1833) ["isApproved"]=> bool(false) ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["label"]=> string(3) "PDF" ["publicationId"]=> int(2686) ["seq"]=> int(0) ["urlPath"]=> string(0) "" ["urlRemote"]=> string(0) "" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(true) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) }The scope of Hungarian cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights proved quite uncommon in the recent period, at least from certain aspects. The Court’s Grand Chamber has held hearings in five Hungarian cases since last summer, which is an unprecedented number especially in the light of the two cases heard altogether by that panel in the last two decades. At the same time, the number of applications against Hungary moved the country up to the fifth position among Council of Europe Member States, following Ukraine, Russia, Turkey and Italy. The subject matter of some recent decisions appears to be similarly unusual, as two of the cases in this review concerned the right to life, a provision violated by Hungary only once before. Apart from those cases, the Court examined the treatment of migrants by Hungarian authorities, the annulment of arcade game licences and the discrimination against a Roma applicant with regard to investigation of his ill-treatment.
The list of reviewed cases against other countries includes, among others, applications concerning the balancing of antiterrorist measures with fair trial rights, the donation of embryos conceived through medically assisted reproduction, the assessment of the degrading nature of a slap in face, and the criminal sanctioning of the denial of the Armenian genocide.
" } ["copyrightHolder"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["prefix"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["subtitle"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["title"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(70) "Alapjogi jogesetek – a strasbourgi Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága" ["hu_HU"]=> string(70) "Alapjogi jogesetek – a strasbourgi Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága" } ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["authors"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(Author)#801 (6) { ["_data"]=> array(15) { ["id"]=> int(3003) ["email"]=> string(19) "noreply@ludovika.hu" ["includeInBrowse"]=> bool(true) ["publicationId"]=> int(2687) ["seq"]=> int(6) ["userGroupId"]=> int(235) ["country"]=> string(2) "HU" ["orcid"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(0) "" ["affiliation"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["biography"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["familyName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(8) "Mohácsi" } ["givenName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(6) "Máté" } ["preferredPublicName"]=> array(2) { ["en_US"]=> string(0) "" ["hu_HU"]=> string(0) "" } ["submissionLocale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } ["keywords"]=> array(1) { ["hu_HU"]=> array(2) { [0]=> string(30) "European Court of Human Rights" [1]=> string(31) "Council of Europe Member States" } } ["subjects"]=> array(0) { } ["disciplines"]=> array(0) { } ["languages"]=> array(0) { } ["supportingAgencies"]=> array(0) { } ["galleys"]=> array(1) { [0]=> object(ArticleGalley)#806 (7) { ["_submissionFile"]=> NULL ["_data"]=> array(9) { ["submissionFileId"]=> int(7763) ["id"]=> int(1834) ["isApproved"]=> bool(false) ["locale"]=> string(5) "hu_HU" ["label"]=> string(3) "PDF" ["publicationId"]=> int(2687) ["seq"]=> int(0) ["urlPath"]=> string(0) "" ["urlRemote"]=> string(0) "" } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(true) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) } } } ["_hasLoadableAdapters"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataExtractionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_extractionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) ["_metadataInjectionAdapters"]=> array(0) { } ["_injectionAdaptersLoaded"]=> bool(false) }