Search results

The legal relationship between civil servants and the state, is not governed by the theory of sovereignty, which is relevant in the outer relationships between the state and its citizens, though it has some, limited effect on the inner relationships between the civil servant and the state organ, as well. The inner relationship falls into the category of "dependent work" and therefore civil servants must enjoy the employment rights generally applicable to employees with some alterations. Among such rights, two are investigated more closely in the paper: protection against unjust dismissal and collective rights of workers (right to organise, right to bargain collectively, and right to strike). In 2010 the Hungarian state modified its regulations on civil servants and introduced dismissal without notice referring to the argument that the parties of the legal relationship must be treated equally and because the civil servant can resign from its position without notice, the same right should be enjoyed by the state, as well. The Hungarian Constitutional Court and European Court of Justice nullified this law because of violating the right to work, the right to human dignity, and the right to hold public positions. The regulations on collective rights of civil servants have been systematically violated by the Hungarian legislator since 1992, when the first regulation on civil servants passed. Until 2011 the right to organise has been enjoyed without disturbance by civil servants but since than the state has organise the Bar of Hungarian Civil Servants into which all civil servants are obliged to enter. Because the Bar has rights which are usually considered to be union rights, therefore the Bar is a competitor of the civil servants' unions; consequently the regulations on the Bar violate the right to organise. The right to bargain collectively has never been enjoyed by unions of civil servants since 1992, despite such right is generally applied in developed countries app. since 1960-1970s and is also accepted by the international conventions on social and economic rights. The right to strike is also restricted by the Agreement on Right to Strike in Civil Service (1994) which prohibits the rights to strike far beyond the limits established by the Fundamental Law and the Act on Right to Strike (Act No. VII of 1989). Alternative methods of collective dispute settlement (mediation, arbitration) are also neglected by the Hungarian legal regime.

The new Romanian Civil Code (adopted in 2009, in effect since 2011) comprises a section dedicated to personality rights, as a novelty element compared to the previous Code. Their incorporation into the form of juridical norm follows both naturally from the historic evolution of some fundamental rights, both from the intention of the Romanian lawmaker to offer a comprehensive legal framework in the field of civil law.

The status of children, and their role have both undergone significant changesall over the world in the past half century. The rights and vulnerabilities of the child are now the subject of increased attention in all fields, including in the framework of the judicial process. Today, the notion of child-friendly justice is not unknown in Hungary although it is yet to be decided if the proper term is child-friendly or child-centred. The means of ensuring that the rights of the child are respected are common to all procedures; however, the traumas and adverse experiences they may have found themselves subjected to are widely diverse in civil cases (usually the establishment of parental supervision), criminal cases (usually crimes where the victim is a child), and in procedures specific to the tutelage authority; so, the question deserves examination in view of such specificities. The adoption of the New York Convention was a significant milestone in the domain of the rights of the child; however, laying down the theoretical foundations was only relatively slowly followed by a dynamic of development in practice, and that took place with a wide degree of variability in different fields. In Europe — as in Hungary —, the participation of the child during the procedure meant the same as a hearing when the child is addressed questions. Today we know that Laura Lundy was right when in several of her studies she drew attention to the fact that true participation is more than simply asking the child questions. In my research, I set myself the task to create a type of catalogue for the procedural rights of the child and to answer the question: what more can we do that has not yet been done in order to avoid transforming participation in a procedure into a burden, or even worse, a trauma for the child, but instead making it the reflection of a plenitude of rights, a defining but not uncomfortable experience?