Significant Decisions of the Constitutional Court between 1 January and 31 March 2019

Abstract

The Constitutional Court (hereinafter: CC) made 81 decisions in the first quarter of 2019. From these, 26 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 established two constitutional requirements and it declared two times legislative omission. 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 four judicial decisions. The Article summarises six significant decisions of the CC from the first quarter of the year. The CC ruled that in case of reviewing the disability allowances, only real physical improvement can be taken into account when classifying a person in a better conditioned grade of disability [CC decision 3024/2019. (II. 4.)] The Court examined the limits of the freedom of speech when judging upon a petition where the petitioner  has committed vandalism by launching paint-colours against a public statue [CC decision 1/2019. (II. 13.)]. In decision 3/2019. (III. 9.) the Court established that the new provisions of the Criminal Code against the supporting of illegal migration are in conformity with the Fundamental Law, however, it established a constitutional requirement: the new statutory definition shall not be applicable to the altruistic conducts that perform the obligation of helping the vulnerable and the poor. The CC protected the right to a fair trial in the administrative procedures when in CC decision 5/2019. (III. 11.) it declared: the reasoning is a compelling element of the administrative decision, and a government decree may not establish an exemption from this constitutional obligation. Lately, in its decision 9/2019. (III. 22.) the CC has stepped up in the interests of the children with difficulties in integration, studies and conduct by establishing a legal omission on the part of the lawmaker.