|Variables||Variables in Hungarian||Values||Values in Hungarian||Name on Website||Name in Airtable||Explanatory notes||Explanatory notes in Hungarian|
|Ruling ID||RulingID||The elementary unit of our dataset is not a case or a decision of the Court but a ruling of a decision. The decisions of the Court typically include more rulings and the justification of those rulings. A ruling, if it is on the merit of the case, usually declares whether a legal provision is consistent with the Constitution/Fundamental Law. The ruling itself is often silent about which provision of the Constitution/Fundamental Law has been violated. Every ruling has a unique identifying number.|
|Decision ID||DecisionID||This refers to the number of the decision the ruling is part of. Hungarian academic literature refers to courts decisions by their IDs that consist of the number and the year of the decision. Eg. 23/1990. The full title of a decision, eg. 23/1990. (X. 31.) AB határozat refers to this ID number 23/1990), the date of the decision (X. 31) and the type of the decision (in that case, 'határozat').|
|Date of decision||DateDecision||The date of the decision in the form: YYYY/MM/DD|
|Year of decision||Year||The year in which the decision was delivered. Although the year of the decision can be identified from the date of the decision, coding the year of the decision separately makes it easier to identify the decisions that were delivered in the same year.|
|Type of decision||TypeDecision||We use the term ‘decision’ as a generic term that comprises both judgments and orders. The Constitutional Court passes judgments on the merit of cases (but it does not imply that every ruling of the decision is about the merit of the case) and passes orders on all other issues that come up in the course of the proceedings. [This terminology differs from that of the official translation of the Act on the Constitutional Court (Act CLI of 2011) that distinguishes between decisions and orders.]|
At present, our dataset contains only judgments that were passed by the plenary session of the Court and published in the Hungarian Official Gazette.
|judgment||határozat||The Court passes judgments on the merit of cases.|
|order||végzés||The Court passes orders on all other issues that come up in the course of the proceedings.|
|Case ID||Az ügy azonosítója||CaseID||When someone files a petition, the Court assigns a unique identifier to the petition, it becomes a case the Court has to consider. This identifier consists of a number, the type of the case, and the year in which the petition was filed. Eg. 182/B/1996. Most cases are concluded in the course of a preliminary procedure or are decided by a single judge. This column specifies the identifier of the case the Court decides on in its judgment. |
|Petitioner||Indítványozó||Petitioner||This column specifies the type of actors who initiated the proceeding of the Constitutional Court.|
|President of the Republic||Köztársasági elnök|
|Standing Committee of Parliament||Az Országgyűlés állandó bizottsága||Standing Committee|
|any Member of Parliament||Bármely országgyűlési képviselő||Member of Parliament|
|One-fourth of all Members of Parliament||Országgyűlési képviselők egynegyede, országgyűlési képviselő csoport||Group of MPs|
|Commissioner of Fundamental Rights||Alapvető jogok biztosa|
|President of the Supreme Court||Kúria vagy a Legfelsőbb Bíróság elnöke|
|Prosecutor General||Legfőbb Ügyész|
|A person affected by the concrete case||Az ügyben érintett magánszemély||affected person|
|President of the State Audit Office||Az Állami Számvevőszék elnöke|
|National Election Commission||Országos Választási Bizottság|
|Constitutional Court ex officio||Az Alkotmánybíróság hivatalból||ex officio|
|without petition||indítvány nélküli||In that case there is a petition but the Court deviates from the petition and the ruling responds to the question that was identified by the Court.||Ebben az esetben létezik indítvány, de az Alkotmánybíróság eltér attól.|
|non-identifiable petitioner||nem beazonosítható indítványozó||In that case, there are more petitioners, but it is impossible to identify whose petition is addressed by the specific ruling.||Amikor tudjuk, hogy többféle indítványozó van, de nem tudjuk őket egy adott rulinghoz rendelni.|
|Competence||Hatáskör||Competence||This column shows the competence in which the Constitutional Court acted when made the decision the ruling is part of. |
|Ex post review of conformity with the Fundamental Law||Az Alaptörvénnyel való összhang utólagos vizsgálata (utólagos normakontroll eljárás) (régi Abtv. 37. §, új Abtv. 24. §)||abstract ex post review|
|Ex ante review of conformity with the Fundamental Law (Preliminary norm control)||Az Alaptörvénnyel való összhang előzetes vizsgálata (előzetes normakontroll eljárás) (régi Abtv. 34-36. §§, új Abtv. 23. §)||abstract ex ante review|
|Full constitutional complaint against a judicial decision||Valódi alkotmányjogi panasz bírósági döntés ellen (új Abtv. 27. §)||full constitutional complaint||Persons or organisations affected by judicial decisions contrary to the Fundamental law may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if the judicial decision violates their rights laid down in the Fundamental Law, and the possibilities for legal remedy have already been exhausted by the petitioner or no possibility for legal remedy is available. (Act on Constitutional Court § 27)|
|Full constitutional complaint against a judicial decision dealing with the resolution of an election body in the legal remedy procedure||Valódi alkotmányjogi panasz a választási szerv határozatával kapcsolatos jogorvoslati eljárásban hozott bírói döntés ellen (új Abtv. 33. §)||full constitutional complaint in electoral remedy procedure|
|Normative constitutional complaint||Alkotmányjogi panasz egyedi ügyben alkalmazott jogszabállyal szemben (régi Abtv. 48.§, új Abtv. 26. § (1))||normative constitutional complaint||Persons or organisations affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if, due to the application of a legal regulation contrary to the Fundamental Law in their judicial proceedings, their rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated and the possibilities for legal remedy have already been exhausted or no possibility for legal remedy is available. [Act on Constitutional Court § 26(1)]|
|“Exceptional” normative constitutional complaint||Kivételes alkotmányjogi panasz (új Abtv. 26. § (2))||exceptional constitutional complaint||Constitutional Court proceedings may be initiated by exception if due to the application of a legal provision contrary to the Fundamental Law, or when such legal provision becomes effective, rights were violated directly, without a judicial decision, and there is no procedure for legal remedy designed to repair the violation of rights, or the petitioner has already exhausted the possibilities for remedy. [Act on Constitutional Court § 26(2)]|
|Judicial initiative for norm control in concrete cases||Bírói kezdeményezés egyedi normakontroll eljárás iránt (Régi Abtv. 38. §. új Abtv. 25. §)||concrete review|
|Objection against the decision of the National Electoral Commission||OVB döntése elleni kifogás régi Ve. 130.§ (1)(népszavazási ügyek)||objection against NEC-decision|
|Examination of conflicts with international treaties||Nemzetközi szerződésbe ütközés vizsgálata (régi Abtv. 44-47. §§, új Abtv. 32. §)||conflicts with international treaties|
|The elimination of legislative omission||Mulasztásban megnyilvánuló alkotmányellenesség régi Abtv. 49. §)||legislative omission|
|Interpretation of the Fundamental Law||Az Alaptörvény értelmezése (régi Abtv. 51. § új Abtv. 38. §)||abstract interpretation|
|Opinion on the dissolution of a local representative body operating contrary to the Fundamental Law||Alaptörvény-ellenesen működő képviselő-testület feloszlatásával összefüggő vélemény (új Abtv. 34. §)||dissolution of local representative body|
|Resolving conflicts of competence||A hatásköri összeütközés feloldása (Régi Abtv. 50. §, új Abtv. 36. §)||resolving conflicts of competence|
|Removal of the President of the Republic from office||A köztársasági elnök tisztségétől való megfosztása új Abtv. 35.§)||removal of the President|
|Examination of Parliamentary Resolution Related to Ordering Referendum||Az Országgyűlés népszavazás elrendelésével összefüggő határozatának vizsgálata (új Abtv. 33. §)||referendum|
|Legal norm challanged||A megtámadott jogi norma||LegalNormChallenged||Exercising most of its powers, the Court scrutinises whether a legal norm conforms to another legal norm, typically the Constitution/Fundamental Law. We have chosen here the term ‘norm’ to include both general legal rules and individual judicial or administrative decisions. This column refers to the unique identifier of the legal norm that was challenged in the case and was reviewed in the ruling by the Court. This identifier typically consists of a number and the year in which the norm was enacted.
Exceptionally, the ruling is not about the conformity of a legal norm to another legal norm. This is the case, for instance, if the Court is asked to interpret a provision of the Constitution/Fundamental Law (abstract interpretation). In such cases, the value of the column is not applicable.
|Legal provision challanged||A megtámadott jogszabályhely||LegalProvisionChallenged|
Most often, petitioners challenge and the Court reviews in a ruling not a legal rule as such but only specific provisions of the rule. This column identifies the articles and sections that were challenged by the petitioner and reviewed by the Court in the ruling. When the ruling is not about the review of a legal norm, the value of this column is ‘not applicable.’ However, if the Court reviewed the legal norm itself and not specific provisions of the norm, or the norm is an individual decision that does not have provisions, we left the column empty.
|Type of the challanged legal norm||A megtámadott jogi norma típusa||TypeChallangedLegalNorm||This column specifies not the unique identifier but the type of the challenged and reviewed legal norm. Once again, when the ruling is not about the review of a legal norm, the value of the column is ‘not applicable’.|
|constitutional amendment||Alaptörvény/Alkotmány és ezek módosításai|
|Act adopted by the Parliament but not yet promulgated||Az Országgyűlés által elfogadott, de még ki nem hirdetett törvény||not yet promulgated Act|
|legislative decree||törvényerejű rendelet|
|ministerial decree||miniszteri rendelet/miniszterelnöki rendelet|
|local government decree||önkormányzati rendelet|
|resolution of the Parliament||OGY határozat|
|judicial decision||Bírósági végzés/ítélet|
|uniformity decision of the Supreme Court||jogegységi határozat|
|decision of an Election Commission||választási bizottsági határozat|
|administrative decision||egyedi közigazgatási határozat|
|pseudo norms||soft law, jogi kötőerővel nem rendelkező dokumentumok|
|Governement in office||A jogszabályhely elfogadása idején regnáló kormány||Government||Our research also aims to identify the political actors responsible for enacting unconstitutional norms. Therefore, we have identified the government in office that enacted a legal norm. The Court must still occasionally review norms that were enacted before 1990, the regime change. In that case, we lumped together all legal rules into one category. As Hungary has a parliamentary system, Parliament is dominated by the same parties that support the government and, therefore, political responsibility can be attributed to the government even if the Act was passed by Parliament. We attributed this responsibility to the reigning government even if an Act was also supported by some of the opposition parties.
By its very nature, this attribute does not apply to all legal norms. Most importantly, it cannot be applied to rulings that review the constitutionality of individual judicial decisions.
In some cases, the ruling reviews more legal provisions enacted by different governments or a single legal provision that was amended by more than one government. In such cases, we listed all the governments.
Legislative omission raises a special difficulty for identifying the government that is responsible for the unconstitutional state of affairs. In this column, we listed all the governments that were in office between the unconstitutional state of affairs was brought about and the Court’s review regardless of whether it was aware of the omission or not.
|Pre-1990 the Regime Change||Rendszerváltás előtt||Pre-1990|
|Horn||Horn kormány||1994. 07.15.|
|Orban 1||I. Orbán kormány||Orban1||1998.07.06.|
|Gyurcsany 1||I. Gyurcsány kormány||Gyurcsany1||2004.09.29.|
|Gyurcsany 2||II. Gyurcsány kormány||Gyurcsany2||2006.06.09.|
|Orban 2||II. Orbán kormány||Orban2||2010.05.29.|
|Orban 3||III. Orbán kormány||Orban3||2014.06.06.|
|Orban 4||IV. Orbán kormány||Orban4||2018.05.18.|
|not applicable||The Government in office is not identifiable or its identity is not relevant.||A hivatalban lévő kormány nem állapítható meg vagy nem releváns.|
|Constitutional provision||Az alkotmány hivatkozott szabálya||ConProvision||Exercising most of its powers, the Court scrutinises whether a legal norm conforms to another legal norm, typically the Constitution/Fundamental Law. This column identifies the constitutional provision that was examined or interpreted by the Court to make the ruling. (When the ruling is on the merit of the case, we coded only the provisions that figure in the Court’s reasoning. Very often, the petitioners also appealed to other provisions.) The first capital letters of these values refer to the 1949 Constitution (CON) or the 2011 Fundamental Law (FL), followed by the number and/or letter of the provision.
In some cases, a competence requires the Court to rely on other legal norms and not the Constitution/Fundamental Law. This is the case, for instance, when the Court reviews whether a legal norm is compatible with international treaties.
|CON1, FL-I etc.||Az Alkotmány és az Alaptörvény hivatkozott rendelkezései|
|International treaty||nemzetközi szerződés|
|EU law||EU jog|
|not specified||nincs meghatározva|
|not applicable||nem alkalmazható|
|Subject matter of the case||Az ügy tárgya||SubjectMatter||The subject matter column refers to the constitutional issue that is raised by the ruling. It helps to locate the nature of the constitutional issue more precisely than if we had referred only to a specific provision of the Constitution/Fundamental Law. In some cases, one constitutional provision covers more subject matters, in other cases, the same subject matter is regulated in different constitutional provisions. Similarly to the Constitutional provision column, this column lists only those topics that play a role in the reasoning of the Court.
We use a nested typology of constitutional subject matters that has two, occasionally three levels. (Category, Subcategory, Subsubcategory). The list of the subject matters can be found in a separate document. Whenever there is a subcategory in the column, we also added the relevant category. If the column also refers to a subsubcategory, we also added both the relevant category and subcategory.
|Field of law||Jogterület||FieldofLaw||The field of law column refers to the field of law the challenged legal norm or legal provision is part of.
We use a nested typology of the different fields of law that has two levels. (Category, Subcategory) The list of the fields of law can be found in a separate document. Whenever there is a subcategory in the column, we also added the relevant category.
In some cases, the subject matter and the field of law columns have very similar names. This happens when the challenged legal provision is part of a law that primarily regulates constitutional issues. Eg. freedom of assembly is regulated by a law on freedom of assembly.
|Keywords||Kulcsszavak||Keywords||The keywords column refers to the specific legal problem the challenged legal norm or legal provision relates to. The function of this column is to identify the specific legal issue to which the challenged legal norm or legal provision is linked.
|Ruling||A határozat rendelkező része||Ruling||This column replicates the rulings from the official texts of the Court’s decisions in Hungarian. The decisions of the Court always distinguish between the rulings of the case and the justification of the rulings. Although this information is useful only for those who speak Hungarian, it helps the Hungarian users of the database to test the accuracy of our coding. |
|Type of ruling||A rendelkezés típusa||TypeRuling||In its decision-making process, the Court has to address three analytically distinct issues. It has to make a decision (1) on the admissibility of the petition, it has to decide (2) on the merit of the case and it also has to determine (3) the legal consequences of its decision. As the admissibility of petitions is reviewed in a preliminary process, most decisions that we coded address only the second and the third questions. However, in a significant number of cases, the Court has to still consider some questions about admissibility. These are always dealt with in a separate ruling of the decision. (Admissibility) Also, although most often the Court decides the merit of the case and determines the legal consequences in a single ruling (Merit and Consequence), in some cases these two issues are addressed separately. This is the case, for instance, when the Court concludes that a legal provision is not unconstitutional on its face (Merit), but determines the Constitution-conform interpretation of the rule (Consequence). Accordingly, this column identifies the type of the ruling, as for the purposes of some research questions not all types of rulings are relevant.
|Admissibility||A rendelkező rész csak a befogadhatóságról dönt|
|Merit||A rendelkező rész csak az érdemi jogi kérdést válaszolja meg, anélkül, hogy a jogkövetkezményeket megállapítaná|
|Merit and Consequence||A rendelkező rész, megválaszolja az érdemi jogi kérdést, és egyben a jogkövetkezményeket is megállapítja|
|Consequence||A rendelkező rész csak jogkövetkezményekre vonatkozik|
|Violation||Történt-e alkotmánysértés?||Violation||This column specifies whether the ruling identified a violation of a constitutional provision. The value of the column is ‘not applicable’ if the ruling is about the admissibility of the petition or determines only the legal consequences of the decision. The value is also ‘not applicable’ if the Court is required to determine the authentic interpretation of a constitutional provision. (abstract interpretation)
|not applicable||nem alkalmazható|
|Violated provision||ViolatedProvision||If the Court found a violation of the Constitution/Fundamental Law, this column specifies which provision of the Constitution/Fundamental Law was violated. The value is ‘not applicable’ when the Court did not find any violation.|
|Content of the ruling||A rendelkezés tartalma||ContentRuling||The content of the ruling is the answer given by the Court to the legal issue raised in the proceedings and the legal consequences established by the Court.|