Significant Decisions of the Constitutional Court of Hungary between 1 January and 15 June 2020

Abstract

The Constitutional Court (hereinafter: CC) made 319 decisions in the first semester of 2020. From these,  63 decisions were on the merits, meanwhile the others were mainly rejections on formal grounds. In the competences of norm control the CC has annulled three legal regulations, it declared three constitutional requirements and two legislative omissions. The mostly practiced competence of the CC is still the constitutional complaint procedure, mainly the one against judicial decisions. In its competence, the Court annulled nine judicial decisions in the first semester of 2020.
The article summarises six significant decisions of the CC from the first semester of the year. The CC, during the examination of the constitutionality of the statutory  limitations on the retail of electronic cigarettes, ruled  that a compensation shall be assured by the legislative organ for the entrepreneurs [CC decision 3/2020. (I. 3.) AB]. In a case related to libel the Court has formed the case-law on the freedom of speech and established that those publishing opinions on social media in public issues (so called influencers) shall show higher tolerance [CC decision 3048/2020. (III. 2.) AB]. The Court examined a court case based on noise complaint where the petitioner made a religious performance too loudly and the judicial decision claimed it as disturbing the neighbours’ peace [CC decision n. 3049/2020. (III. 2.) AB]. The Court established certain guarantees in the framework of the right to fair trial in a case launched  for wrongful retention of a child 3068/2020. (III. 9.) AB]. The CC has declared a legislative omission in a case for the publicity of public data, calling upon the lawmaker to ensure the effective legal remedy [7/2020. (V. 13.) AB]. In the end, the Court, when examining the regulation on the disability allowances, declared a constitutional requirement in order to provide the allowance for the petitioner, who, previously, had launched a procedure at the European Court of Human Rights. The decision of the CC enables the ordinary courts to interpret the regulations in favour of the complainant [10/2020.V.28.) AB].