Judicial Review of Statutory Public Bodies’ Regulations in the Light of the Hungarian Code of Administrative Court Procedure
Abstract
The introduction of judicial review of statutory public bodies’ normative administrative acts was long overdue in the Hungarian legal system. Prior to 2018, no subjective or objective legal protection was allowed against these acts, which resulted in a number of anomalies, especially in case of professional bodies (chambers) with compulsory membership. This issue was recognised by the legislature as well, which endeavoured to rectify this hiatus by adopting the Code of Administrative Court Procedure. However, the progressive rules of the Code regarding the judicial review of normative acts of professional bodies have never been put into practice, as a mere two years later it was altered in a way that reflected a reversion to the regulatory framework prior to the adoption of the Code. The aim of this paper is to examine the original regulatory framework as well as the new amended rules of the Code from the perspective of the twofold function of administrative justice: protecting individual rights, while also controlling the legality of administration. Our primary focus of research was on the qualitative examination of the rules of the Code, however we also touch upon judicial practice, where available.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
LITERATURE
Barabás G., A Kúria ítélete a Magyar Orvosi Kamara tagdíjszabályzatában foglalt regisztrációs díjfizetési kötelezettséget előíró szabály hatályon kívül helyezéséről, “Jogesetek Magyarázata” 2014, vol. 5(4).
Chronowski N., The Post-2010 ‘Democratic Rule of Law’ Practice of the Hungarian Constitutional Court under a Rule by Law Governance, “Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies” 2020 vol. 61(2), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2052.2020.00267.
Dănişor D.C., Dănişor M.C., Modern Solidarity and Administrative Repressions, “Juridical Tribune” 2021, vol. 11(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/TBJ/2021/11/3.04.
Domcke H., Verfassungsrechtliche Fragen einer autonomen Satzungskompetenz der Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, “Zeitschrift Für Rechtspolitik” 1988, vol. 21(9).
Fazekas M., A köztestületek szabályozásának egyes kérdései, Budapest 2008.
Fazekas M., Balancierung zwischen dem öffentlich-rechtlichen und zivilrechtlichen Status: Neue Probleme in den Berufskammerregelungen, [in:] Aktuelle Entwicklungen des Kammerwesens und der Interessenvertretung in Ungarn und Europa, eds. M. Dobák, W. Kluth, G. Jenő, Budapest 2009.
Fazekas M., Chambers of Professional Services and Europeanisation, “Annales: Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis De Rolando Eötvös Nominatae Sectio Iuridica” 2007, vol. 48.
Fazekas M., Közigazgatási bíráskodás a hatósági ügyeken túl (A közigazgatási perrendtartás tárgyi hatályának néhány kérdése), [in:] 350 éves az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kara. A jubilieumi év konferenciasorozatának tanulmányai. I. kötet, eds. A. Menyhárd, I. Varga, Budapest 2018.
Hoffman I., Application of Administrative Law in the Time of Reforms in the Light of the Scope of Judicial Review in Hungary, “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2020, vol. 29(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2020.29.3.101-116.
Hoffman I., Néhány gondolat a normakontroll- eljárásoknak a Közigazgatási perrendtartásban történő szabályozásáról, “Jogtudományi Közlöny” 2017, vol. 72(7–8).
Hoffman I., Fazekas M., A köztestületi felügyeleti per alapja és eljárási szabályai, [in:] Kommentár a közigazgatási perrendtartásról szóló 2017. évi I. törvényhez, eds. G. Barabás, K.F. Rozsnyai, A.Gy. Kovács, Budapest 2018.
Hoffman I., Rozsnyai F.K., The Supervision of Self-Government Bodies’ Regulations in Hungary, “Lex localis – Journal of Local Self-Government” 2016, vol. 13(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.4335/13.3.485-502(2015).
Kirste S., Theorie der Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, Salzburg 2017.
Küpper H., Magyarország átalakuló közigazgatási bíráskodása, “MTA Law Working Papers” 2014, vol. 1(59).
Maurer H., Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, München 2011.
Patyi A., A magyar közigazgatási bíráskodás elmélete és története, Budapest 2019.
Rozsnyai F.K., Anfängliche Schwierigkeiten bei der Anwendung der ungarischen Verwaltungsprozessordnung, [in:] Jahrbuch für Ostrecht, München 2020.
Rozsnyai F.K., Current Tendencies of Judicial Review as Reflected in the New Hungarian Code of Administrative Court Procedure, “Central European Public Administration Review” 2019, vol. 17(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2019.1.01.
Rozsnyai F.K., Geschichte der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in Ungarn, [in:] Handbuch der Geschichte der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in Deutschland und Europa, eds. K.-P. Sommermann, B. Schaffarzik, Berlin–Heidelberg 2018.
Rozsnyai F.K., Hatékony jogvédelem a közigazgatási perben, Budapest 2018.
Rozsnyai K.F., The Procedural Autonomy of Hungarian Administrative Justice as a Precondition of Effective Judicial Protection, “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2021, vol. 30(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.4.491-503.
Sossin L., Smith C.W., Hard Choices and Soft Law: Ethical Codes, Policy Guidelines and the Role of the Courts in Regulating Government, “Alberta Law Review” 2003, vol. 40(4).
Ţiclău T., Hinţea C., Trofin C., Resilient Leadership: Qualitative Study on Factors Influencing Organizational and Adaptive Response to Adversity, “Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences” 2021 (Special Issue), DOI: https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.SI2021.7.
Varga Zs.A., Ombudsman, ügyész, magánjogi felelősség. Alternatív közigazgatási kontroll Magyarországon, Budapest 2012.
Varga Zs.A., The Constitutional Basis of the Hungarian Public Administration, [in:] Hungarian Public Administration and Administrative Law, eds. A. Patyi, Á. Rixer, Passau 2014.
Zuck R., Die anwaltliche Berufsgerichtsbarkeit – Entwicklungslinien und Modellvorstellungen, “Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik” 1997, vol. 30(7).
LEGAL ACTS
Act LXV of 2006 on the amendment of Act XXXVIII/1992 on public finances and certain related acts.
Act CXXX of 2010 on law-making.
Act CLXIII of 2011 on the Prosecution Service of Hungary.
Act I of 2017 on the Code of Administrative Court Procedure.
Act CXXVII of 2019 on the amendment of certain Acts in relation to the single-instance administrative procedures of district offices.
CASE LAW
Decision Kfv. 37.540/2012/5 of the Curia.
Decision Kfv. 37.531/2010/7 of the Curia.
Decision Kfv. 37.811/2012/6 of the Curia.
Decision Kfv. 37.983/2019/10 of the Curia.
Decision Kpkf. 37.318/2019/2 of the Curia.
Decision Pf. 20.456/2017/4 of the Metropolitan Regional Court of Appeal.
Decision Pf. 21.195/2018/6 of the Metropolitan Regional Court of Appeal.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 23 June 1981, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium, Application nos 6878/75 & 7238/75.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 10 February 1983, Albert & Le Compte v Belgium, Application nos 7299/75 & 7496/76.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 20 May 1998, Schöpfer v Switzerland, Application no. 25405/94.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 24 September 2002, Posti and Rahko v Finland, Application no. 27824/95.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2022.31.4.175-192
Date of publication: 2022-12-28 17:33:08
Date of submission: 2022-04-21 09:03:34
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Marcell Kárász, István Hoffman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.