Suchergebnisse

During the last decades, several countries have entrenched a special subcategory of law, which is adopted by stricter procedural rules than that of the ordinary legislative process. These laws are enacted by qualified majority, by the consent of the two chambers of the legislature, and they are subject to mandatory constitutional review before their promulgation, or additional safeguards are implemented in the ordinary legislative process. In this study, I compare the experiences of two crucial legal systems, France and Spain, which provide two different frameworks of qualified law. My aim is to identify the most contested issues from the legal nature of qualified laws, and to seek the proper solutions of these issues, as well as an ideal model of qualified law. My contribution focuses on the relationship between qualified laws and the principle of democracy, and aims to open up new perspectives in this regard. ; Az utóbbi évtizedekben számos államban jelent meg egy olyan törvénytípus, amelyet a rendes jogalkotási eljáráshoz képest szigorúbb eljárási szabályok szerint kell megalkotni. Ezeket a törvényeket minősített többséggel kell elfogadni, a törvényalkotás két házának egyetértésével, és kihirdetésük előtt kötelező az alkotmányossági felülvizsgálatuk, vagy a rendes jogalkotási eljáráshoz képest más többletgarancia alkalmazása. Ebben a tanulmányban a téma szempontjából két legfontosabb jogrendszer tapasztalatait hasonlítom össze: Franciaországét és Spanyolországét. E két jogrendszer különbözőképpen kezeli a minősített törvényeket. Célom, hogy bemutassan a minősített törvények jogi természetével kapcsolatos főbb kérdéseket, és ezekre válaszlehetőségeket mutassak be. A tanulmány fókuszában a minősített törvények és a demokrácia viszonya áll: e viszonyra tekintettel igyekszem a téma vizsgálatához új szempontokat adni. During the last decades, several countries have entrenched a special subcategory of law, which is adopted by stricter procedural rules than that of the ordinary legislative process. These laws are enacted by qualified majority, by the consent of the two chambers of the legislature, and they are subject to mandatory constitutional review before their promulgation, or additional safeguards are implemented in the ordinary legislative process. In this study, I compare the experiences of two crucial legal systems, France and Spain, which provide two different frameworks of qualified law. My aim is to identify the most contested issues from the legal nature of qualified laws, and to seek the proper solutions of these issues, as well as an ideal model of qualified law. My contribution focuses on the relationship between qualified laws and the principle of democracy, and aims to open up new perspectives in this regard.

Over the last few decades, several countries have entrenched a special subcategory of law, which is adopted by stricter procedural rules than the requirements of the ordinary legislative process. These laws are enacted by qualified majority, by the consent of the two chambers of the legislation, and are subject to mandatory constitutional review before their promulgation, or additional safeguards are implemented in the ordinary legislative process. It is beyond doubt that this legal instrument influences the prevalence of the separation of powers and the constitutional principle of democracy in a remarkable way; therefore, it might be an important tool for populist politicians to concrete their preferences for the long term. In this study, my aim is to conceptualize the most highly contested issues regarding the legal nature of qualified laws, and to provide a deeper understanding of the interdependence between qualified laws and the separation of powers. This analysis might also clarify how qualified laws may serve the ambitions of populist political groups in certain specific circumstances. My contribution provides general theoretic considerations, and does not outline the particular constitutional frameworks in detail. I would rather just use the specific examples to demonstrate how the mechanism of qualified law works in practice as an instrument of constitutional law.

Este estudio se centra en las llamadas Leyes Cardinales en Hungría. El principal objetivo es entender mejor el concepto, especialmente su rol histórico y su funcionamiento dentro del ordenamiento del país, a lo largo de la transición a la democracia, y en la actualidad. Se destacará la importancia de este tipo de normas cuando existe una mayoría parlamentaria cualificada. A lo largo de las últimas décadas diversos países han adoptado una subcategoría especial de Ley, para cuya aprobación se exigen normalmente reglas procedimentales más estrictas que para las ordinarias, y que suelen exigir mayorías cualificadas, aprobándose por las dos Cámaras Legislativas, y sujetas a revisión constitucional previa, antes de su entrada en vigor. En general, gozan de exigencias mayores y de controles más severos que las leyes ordinarias. Después de definir la noción, y de hacer un breve repaso por la escena internacional así como por otras cuestiones introductorias, se centra la atención en tres aspectos: el bagaje histórico que presentan, las materias que regulan, y los caracteres que más destacan. En cada uno de ellos se comparará el caso húngaro con el caso español para demostrar cómo las Leyes Cardinales pueden ser consideradas un factor de riesgo para la democracia, y por qué no sucede lo mismo para el caso de España.This study focuses on the so-called «cardinal laws» in Hungary: my primary purpose is to provide a better understanding of this concept, and especially to conceptualize the historical role and function of this legal framework in Hungary, during the democratic transition, and even nowadays. Particular highlight will be given to the special impact of cardinal laws under qualified parliamentary majority. During the last decades, several countries have entrenched a special subcategory of law, which is adopted by stricter procedural rules, than the requirements of the ordinary legislative process. These laws are enacted by qualified majority, by the consent of the two chambers of the legislation, they are subject to ...

During the last decades, several countries have entrenched a special subcategory of law, which is adopted by stricter procedural rules than that of the ordinary legislative process. These laws are enacted by qualified majority, by the consent of the two chambers of the legislature, and they are subject to mandatory constitutional review before their promulgation, or additional safeguards are implemented in the ordinary legislative process. In this study, I compare the experiences of two crucial legal systems, France and Spain, which provide two different frameworks of qualified law. My aim is to identify the most contested issues from the legal nature of qualified laws, and to seek the proper solutions of these issues, as well as an ideal model of qualified law. My contribution focuses on the relationship between qualified laws and the principle of democracy, and aims to open up new perspectives in this regard. ; Az utóbbi évtizedekben számos államban jelent meg egy olyan törvénytípus, amelyet a rendes jogalkotási eljáráshoz képest szigorúbb eljárási szabályok szerint kell megalkotni. Ezeket a törvényeket minősített többséggel kell elfogadni, a törvényalkotás két házának egyetértésével, és kihirdetésük előtt kötelező az alkotmányossági felülvizsgálatuk, vagy a rendes jogalkotási eljáráshoz képest más többletgarancia alkalmazása. Ebben a tanulmányban a téma szempontjából két legfontosabb jogrendszer tapasztalatait hasonlítom össze: Franciaországét és Spanyolországét. E két jogrendszer különbözőképpen kezeli a minősített törvényeket. Célom, hogy bemutassan a minősített törvények jogi természetével kapcsolatos főbb kérdéseket, és ezekre válaszlehetőségeket mutassak be. A tanulmány fókuszában a minősített törvények és a demokrácia viszonya áll: e viszonyra tekintettel igyekszem a téma vizsgálatához új szempontokat adni. During the last decades, several countries have entrenched a special subcategory of law, which is adopted by stricter procedural rules than that of the ordinary legislative process. These laws are enacted by qualified majority, by the consent of the two chambers of the legislature, and they are subject to mandatory constitutional review before their promulgation, or additional safeguards are implemented in the ordinary legislative process. In this study, I compare the experiences of two crucial legal systems, France and Spain, which provide two different frameworks of qualified law. My aim is to identify the most contested issues from the legal nature of qualified laws, and to seek the proper solutions of these issues, as well as an ideal model of qualified law. My contribution focuses on the relationship between qualified laws and the principle of democracy, and aims to open up new perspectives in this regard.

Over the last few decades, several countries have entrenched a special subcategory of law, which is adopted by stricter procedural rules than the requirements of the ordinary legislative process. These laws are enacted by qualified majority, by the consent of the two chambers of the legislation, and are subject to mandatory constitutional review before their promulgation, or additional safeguards are implemented in the ordinary legislative process. It is beyond doubt that this legal instrument influences the prevalence of the separation of powers and the constitutional principle of democracy in a remarkable way; therefore, it might be an important tool for populist politicians to concrete their preferences for the long term. In this study, my aim is to conceptualize the most highly contested issues regarding the legal nature of qualified laws, and to provide a deeper understanding of the interdependence between qualified laws and the separation of powers. This analysis might also clarify how qualified laws may serve the ambitions of populist political groups in certain specific circumstances. My contribution provides general theoretic considerations, and does not outline the particular constitutional frameworks in detail. I would rather just use the specific examples to demonstrate how the mechanism of qualified law works in practice as an instrument of constitutional law.

Abstract
Our study will provide a broad definition of parliamentary speech, and on this ground, we will assess, whether there are unitary European standards of parliamentary free speech. For this purpose, we will distinguish external and internal aspects of parliamentary publicity, and we will analyse, which are the proper basis to restrict these crucial values. The parliamentary law and practice of a great number of European countries will be taken into account, and also the case law of the European Court of Human Rights will be highlighted. As the outcome of the analysis, certain proposals will be put forward to promote parliamentary publicity with the help of the instruments of modern technology.

In our study, we attempt to provide a broad picture about the views of those authors who assessed the nationality concept of Ferenc Deák and József Eötvös, and through this analysis we would clarify how diverse approaches of the same issue might exist within the academic literature. We rely on the main relevant sources drafted under different political regimes: from the dualist period, Béla Grünwald, Lajos Mocsáry, and Oszkár Jászi are highlighted; from the era between the two world wars, Gyula Szekfű, Imre Mikó, and Kálmán Molnár will be cited; while the communist approach would be represented by Erzsébet Fazekas and Gábor Kemény G. Apart from the most influential Hungarian scholars, some authors from the neighbouring countries and the mainstream contemporary international literature on the status of national minorities will be also referred to. The core of our research is not the evaluation of the 1868 Act on nationalities or its application itself but the ex-post assessment of the political nation concept provided by Deák and Eötvös, which was a point of reference for the whole contemporary Hungarian political community and which also determined the logic of the 1868 Act on nationalities.

This article assesses the European Court of Human Rights' possible responses to post-COVID-19 misinformation laws. These laws are intended to protect society but may become dangerous weapons if used by governments wishing to silence opponents. We identify four categories of speech restrictions that appeared during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then present the recent misinformation laws from Council of Europe member states as well as various potential arguments when cases appear before the Court, and assess their potential weight. We also analyze the expected post-pandemic development of the European Convention on Human Rights' Article 10 jurisprudence.