Suchergebnisse

The principle of favor defensionis (principle of protection) nowadays basically expresses that the Criminal Procedural Act seeks to eliminate and somewhat compensate for the disadvantage of the accused by certain detailed provisions. In dubious cases, the law is interpreted in favour of the accused in the spirit of the principle, even against the equality of arms principle. By this principle, Finkey meant cases where the rules of procedure allow for multiple interpretations, in which case they must be interpreted in favour of the accused. The principle also often appears in today's law enforcement.

One of the key elements of Hungarian public thinking is the question of nationalities and its historical aspects. For well-known historical facts, the questions and answers of national minorities still have constitutional significance. The examination of the Act XLIV of 1868 on the Equality of Nationalities, including its antecedents, has not only importance from the point of view of legal history, but it is also essential for the cultivation of the current constitutional law, and, consequently, also strongly contributes to the understanding of today's legal institutions. The essay describes the process of drafting this legislation.

Fiume (current official name: Rijeka) became part of Hungary in 1779 as a "corpus separatum". At the time of the so-called provision, after 1870, the legal system of the port city developed in a special way. Although the Hungarian government took over the administration of the city again, this did not mean the automatic reception and application of the entire Hungarian legal system. Some Hungarian laws were not later enacted in Fiume. The article prepared on the basis of the conference lecture in Cluj-Napoca (Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania) intends to review the issues of legal interpretation of the applicability of Act XLIV of 1868 on National Equality by using descriptive method, taking into account legal history and legal theory aspects.

The EU is bound to respect the national identities of Member States. States might, at occasions, define their national identities in ways that breach inclusive constitutional values (e.g. equality) protected under TEU Article 2. The assumption behind the recognition of diverse constitutional identities is the peaceful coexistence of both, which is challenged by illiberal national developments. Instead, we see a zero-sum game between the constitutional recognition of exclusive values (e.g. dominant ethnicity or religion) and inclusive constitutional values; every gain by the proponents of emergent authoritarianism translates to a loss on the side of constitutional democracy. While exclusive norms appear in virtually every constitutional system, a critical mass of exclusive values can lead to the hollowing out of a democratic order, both on the national and on the supranational level. To try to draw the line where this shift happens, we are relying on the limits of toleration, and recognition, of exclusive norms and identity elements of minority communities in liberal theories of multiculturalism (e.g. Raz, Taylor, Kymlicka). We think that the case of illiberal minorities raise structurally similar theoretical questions, insights, and experiences than the dilemma defined above, the challenge of illiberal Member States undermining EU fundamental values.

Introduction: Contexts of Gypsy/Roma identity and history -- On the sources of Gypsy/Roma history -- Who (what) is (was) Hungarian or Gypsy/Roma? -- "Comrades, if you have a heart" : the history of the Gypsy issue, 1945-1961 -- The construction and spread of the state socialist system -- Policy and Gypsies -- Modernization and Gypsy communities -- Disciplinary state -- The impossibility of self-organization -- Minority issue -- Discourses on social policy and equality -- "Life goes on" : the Hungarian party-state and assimilation -- Social policy and the Gypsies -- Wage work -- Housing -- Social system -- Education -- Scientific approaches -- Gypsy images -- The transformation of discourse -- Disciplinary power, disciplinary society -- Police and agents -- "Health supervisors" -- The national minority issue -- National movement -- The "ethnic interpretation" of history -- Roma policy after the regime change -- Minority issue -- Prospects for multiculturalism -- Minority (self-)government? -- Divide at Impera : the opportunities and impossibilities of self-organization -- Movement -- National minority culture, national culture -- Questions of equal treatment and equal opportunity -- Anti-discrimination -- Equal opportunity -- Roma programs -- Education -- Employment -- Social policy and the Roma -- Aid -- Segregation -- Disciplinary society -- The transformation of discourses -- Research methods -- Panopticon : Roma policy, 2010-2015 -- The Hungarian National Cooperation System -- The anti-egalitarian character of the system -- Changing minority legislation -- New social policy? -- Violence -- The shift -- Summary: Decades of exclusion

Apart from the relation between the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen and the other realms of the Habsburg Empire, the primary issue of the 1860s Hungary and Transylvania to handle was the nationality equality — accordingly, the recognitions of a nation and the language policy. As soon as the national question came into view, both the Hungarian and non-Hungarian political élites formulated their outlines on how to adjust regulations, intended to be epoch-making, regarding the national and language affairs, while the emperor temporarily coordinated the case with royal decrees until the definitive Nationality Act of 1868. The Act and its preceding drafts administered many domains regarding all branches of power, with the special role of the declaration of nations, namely the recognition of such as a legal entity, a juridicial person, which would (have) allow(ed) further entitled rights, deriving from a declaration in the era. The Hungarian and non-Hungarian acts and drafts examined in the study show decisive discrepancies regarding the number of nation(alitie)s recognized as legal entities, how the minorities were defined, and what concept of a nation each draft laid down. In my study, I examine the dissimilarities of the 5 draft plans (and the Act) made by the Hungarian élite, 8 draft plans (and acts of the 1863—1864 national assembly of Transylvania) related to the nationality political élite, draft plans and royal decrees associated to the emperor and the Royal Hungarian Lieutenancy, and a joint independence opposition — nationality draft plan.