Statistical data: 1 January 1996 - 30 April 1996

Number of decisions
• Decisions by the plenary Court published in the Official Gazette: 10
• Decisions by chambers published in the Official Gazette: 9
• Number of other decisions by the plenary Court: 20
• Number of other decisions by chambers: 11
• Number of other (procedural) orders: 45
• Total number of decisions: 90

Important decisions

Identification: HUN-96-1-001
a) Hungary / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 26.01.1996 / e) 1/1996 / f) / g) Magyar Kozlony (Official Gazette), no. 7/1996/h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Equality.

Keywords of the alphabetical index:
Discrimination between private and public employers / Employees, liability for damages.

Headnotes:
Special liability rules laid down for a limited circle of employers results in an unconstitutional discrimination.

Summary:
Article 348 of the Civil Code regulates the liability of the employee when causing work-related damage to a third person. As a general rule in such cases the employer is liable toward the third person. Paragraph 2 of the mentioned article regulates that special case when the employer is not able to cover the damages: in that case the employee can be made liable for it. The division of the liability between the employer and the employee is regulated by the Labour Code.
The special rule applies only to employers having no more than thirty employees. The present-day text of the article dates from 1989. Before that time it referred to private employers in general (thus making a clear distinction between state-owned and private enterprises). The Constitutional Court found even the amended text of the article to be unconstitutional, and annulled it. The challenged section provided a special liability rule in favour of the third person, who is usually the client of the employer, by also rendering the employee liable. A rule creating a subsidiary or background liability in specified cases can be justified. The provision of the Civil Code discriminated against a group of private employers without giving any constitutionally acceptable reason, however, and therefore it was unconstitutional.

Supplementary information:
One judge concurred in the opinion, explaining in detail the history of the respective provisions.

Languages: Hungarian.

Identification: HUN-96-1-002
a) Hungary / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 23.02.1996 / e) 3/1996 / f) / g) Magyar Kozlony (Official Gazette), no. 14/1996/h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Constitutional justice - Types of claim - Claim by a private body or individual - Political parties.
 Constitutional justice - Types of litigation - Admissibility of referendums and other consultations.
Constitutional justice - The subject of review.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Parliamentary resolution, nature / Popular referendum.

Headnotes:
An individual resolution of Parliament on the admissibility of a popular referendum is not a legislative act.

Summary:
A political party (the Workers' Party) initiated a popular referendum on the question as to whether or not Hungary should join NATO. The party was able to collect more than 140,000 signatures (the minimum requirement is 100,000). Nevertheless Parliament with a resolution rejected the claim for the popular referendum because it considered it to be too early to hold a referendum on a question which the country was not in a position to decide. The petitioner considered that the parliamentary resolution violated both the provisions of the Constitution and the law on popular referenda.
The Constitutional Court, interpreting the provisions of the Act on Legislation, pointed out that an individual resolution deciding on the admissibility of a popular referendum is not a legislative act, and thus held that the Constitutional Court had no competence to adjudicate upon its constitutionality. The Constitutional Court also rejected other parts of the petition.

Languages: Hungarian.

Identification: HUN-96-1-003
a) Hungary / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 22.03.1996 / e) 12/1996 / f) / g) Magyar Kozleny (Official Gazette), no. 32/1996/h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Right to private life.
Fundamental rights - Economic, social and cultural rights - Right to be taught.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Criminal record, clean / Data protection / Dignity / Right to Higher education.

Headnotes:
It violates the right to higher education, the right of privacy, and thus the right to human dignity that applicants for admission to higher education institutions are requested to present a document certifying the lack of criminal record (good-conduct certificate).

Summary:
A governmental decree on admission to higher education institutions prescribed that the applicant has to attach to the application for admission an official document certifying the absence of a previous criminal record. The Constitutional Court by its decision no. 35/1995 (VI.2) had declared unconstitutional a provision of the Act on Higher Education that excluded from higher education persons whose punishment also included the exclusion from public affairs.
The Constitutional Court in the present case declared that a previous criminal record is not an obstacle to university studies. The Constitutional Court examined the question from the point of view of the protection of personal data. Under the Act on Data Protection the use of special personal data can be permitted only by a law. A governmental decree cannot prescribe the use of special personal data like that of a previous criminal record. Thus the governmental decree violated Article 35 of the Constitution, according to which a governmental decree cannot contradict a law.

Supplementary information: The decision was delivered by a three-member panel.

Languages: Hungarian.

Identification: HUN-96-1-004
a) Hungary / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 03.05.1996 / e) 16/1996 / f) / g) Magyar Kozlony (Official Gazette), no. 35/1996/h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
General principles-Rule of law - Certainty of the law.
General principles - Rule of law - Maintaining confidence.
Institutions - Public finances - Taxation.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Non-retrospective effect of law - Taxation law.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Tax exemptions, reversal / Taxes.

Headnotes:
The reversal or reduction of a tax exemption given for a defined time period before the expiration of that period is usually unconstitutional because it violates legal certainty and consequently the principle of the rule of law expressed in Article 2 of the Constitution.
A distinction must be made between tax reductions granted for a short term and those that are long term. The reversal of tax reductions given for a short period of time are especially not acceptable constitutionally. In the case of long-term tax exemptions, proportionally with the duration of the exemption, exceptionally the legislator may reverse it in event of basic and significant changes in the circumstances. This may be particularly the case when the changes in the circumstances compared to those at the time of the granting of the exemptions would make it disproportionally hard or even impossible for the State to uphold the exemptions. Thus tax exemptions given for a defined time generally cannot be reversed. But exceptionally tax exemptions given for a long time period might be reduced or reversed constitutionally.

Summary:
An amendment in 1994 to the Act on Corporate Taxes of 1991 reduced the exemptions granted in 1988 for companies operating with foreign capital. The exemption was originally granted for ten years. The amendment of the law as a matter of fact did not abolish the tax exemption but split the respective tax into two parts. The exemption applied automatically only for one part of the tax, while additional prerequisites were set out for attaining exemption for the other part. According to the Constitutional Court the reversal concerned the original tax, and did not amount to the introduction of a new tax. Therefore the constitutional review focused on the constitutionality of the reversal of an exemption granted for a limited time period.

Supplementary information:
The decision extensively quoted the Constitutional Court's previous rulings on tax exemptions.
Four judges out of the nine dissented. One judge wrote the dissenting opinion in which the other three concurred. The dissent warned of the dangers of the generalisation in the majority's opinion. The principle of maintaining confidence in the certainty of legal regulations cannot be examined only in terms of duration of time; the examination of the gravity of the reasons relied on by the legislator for amending the law, and especially the proportionality of the goals and the means applied, were also important elements in reaching a well-founded decision.

Languages: Hungarian.