Az érintettség követelménye az alkotmányjogi panasz-eljárásokban
Deciding individual constitutional complaints is one of the most crucial competences of the Constitutional Court. In the last four years the Hungarian Constitutional Court (HCC) examined a great number of constitutional complaints claiming violation of fundamental rights. In this article I analyze t...
Elmentve itt :
| Szerző: | |
|---|---|
| Dokumentumtípus: | Cikk |
| Megjelent: |
2015
|
| Sorozat: | Acta Universitatis Szegediensis : forum : acta juridica et politica
5 No. 2 |
| Kulcsszavak: | Alkotmányjog |
| Tárgyszavak: | |
| Online Access: | http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/85570 |
| Tartalmi kivonat: | Deciding individual constitutional complaints is one of the most crucial competences of the Constitutional Court. In the last four years the Hungarian Constitutional Court (HCC) examined a great number of constitutional complaints claiming violation of fundamental rights. In this article I analyze the case law under the new Act on the Constitutional Court. My first aim is to reveal the main character of the admissibility procedure. Second, I focus on particular features of potential victim status described by the HCC. Third, I offer an explanation how this part of the admissibility procedure shapes the role of the HCC as the ultimate protector of fundamental rights. Since 2012 the HCC has been brought about 1,400 decisions on individual constitutional complaints. Near 10 % of those rulings explicitly deals with the potential victim status. The verification requirement of alleged violation of fundamental rights during the admissibility procedure is not only a formal demand but also a substantive precondition of the effective fundamental rights protection. In line with the legislative intent, the HCC established strict criteria by which the potential or real victim status may be judged. As regards the case law of full (§ 27) and normative (§ 26.1) complaints, the HCC jurisprudence can be seen as more or less consistent. The case study of the exceptional normative complaint (§ 26.2), however, shows that the outcome of the HCC’s examination of the alleged violation of fundamental rights (three criteria: applicant should be affected directly, personally, and actually) is unpredictable. Due to the doubtful practice, many applicants who suffered “direct and actual” fundamental rights violations by an unconstitutional norm are excluded from judicial protection. As a consequence, the current test of victim status fashioned by the HCC denies fundamental rights protection of the most vulnerable groups of people. |
|---|---|
| Terjedelem/Fizikai jellemzők: | 121-135 |
| ISSN: | 2063-2525 |