A megfelelő ügyintézéshez való jog a rendészetben – az ombudsmani gyakorlat kritikai elemzése

Absztrakt

This study takes as its basis the experience of the ombudsman in relation to law enforcement cases and examines in detail discrepancies between fair procedure and the right to proper administration. It will show that though neither the Constitutional Court nor the ombudsmen have paid the question special attention there are contradictions in the content of the Fundamental Law’s (Constitution) articles XXIV and XXVIII. The author will show that adherence to the regulations of the 2004 law regarding law enforcement, including its principles, does not guarantee fair procedure since fairness is a concept which can only be established after examining the entire procedure. After analysing the practice the study draws the conclusion that the right to proper administration is characterized by subsidiarity, that is to say that insult can only be independently established if the fault of public administration had no affect on the validity of another fundamental right. An important conclusion is that there is among procedures of public administration a guaranteed minimum, one that the absolute right to so-called fiar procedure protects. This supposes a totally different qualitative level, and in examining validity different aspects have to be taken into account. This is the case where the impression of the entire procedure must seem fair. The two fundamental rights apply to two different levels of the procedure, nonetheless, if the procedure does not meet the requirements of guaranteed honest procedure, then it can not have conceptually agreed with the requirements of the right to proper public administration.