as representatives of an institution of public policy committed to constitutionalism in Hungary, as Amicus Curiae, in order to assist the decision-making of the Court, we wish to add the following arguments to those of the European Commission and commend them to the attention of the Court. In our view, the Court should accept the action brought by the European Commission.   

László Majtényi's paper, European Parliament, Open Hearing "Freedom of Press in Hungary", Brussels, 11 January, 2011.   

For years, the Eötvös Károly Institute has urged Parliament to legislate for the disclosure of information in justice, in an effort to meet constitutional requirements and the expectations of the electronic age.   

We will publish the draft of a deal that Hungary’s political parties had negotiated for months before it fell through in the eleventh hour.   

Early in 2007, the Eötvös Károly Institute proposed five-party negotiations to review current regulations of party and campaign finance–rules that remain impossible to observe, continually undermine the esteem of the republic, and inevitably lead to corruption. The parliamentary parties accepted the Institute’s invitation and, during the period from March 27 to July 12, held a series of consultation sessions attended by designated representatives from the parties. On the initiative of the FIDESZ, the Eötvös Károly Institute itself and the Nézőpont Institute were invited to help organize the round of talks.   

The Eötvös Károly Institute reminds readers of the promise, publicly and solemnly affirmed by political leaders, that lies will come to end in 2006. If we are to believe our politicians, then, 2007 should be the first year completely without political lies in this country.   

   

“In the hierarchy of principles informing Hungary’s constitutional system, no value stands higher than that of human life. The right to the absolute values of life and dignity erects barriers even before the penalizing powers of the state. What follows from this constitutional tenet is not just the ban on capital punishment in the Republic of Hungary, but also the country’s obligation to oppose the death penalty as such. Therefore, under no circumstances may Hungary welcome the execution of a death sentence elsewhere, even if that sentence happens to have been just and well-deserved in the private opinion of one of the servants of the Republic.”   

“I am aware that Mr. President’s letter was one of the topics that came up at the November 14, 2006 session of the committee, convened to decide whether Bill T/1202 was suited for submission for general debate.”   

In the history of what is known as the Third Republic in Hungary, never since the Antall-Tölgyessy Pact has the need for sensible collaboration between the government and the opposition been so pressing. Then again, the chances to achieve that cooperation have never been so slim. And yet, the government and the opposition ought to mount a concerted effort, for the benefit of the community of voters, to set aside their differences and pave the way for a series of general and specialized political decisions, ultimately adopting the most significant of these in concord. What is called for is a covenant capable of closing down certain theaters of operation of the reigning and futile political stalemate, while preserving the political elbow room of each opponent.   

The Eötvös Károly Institute takes this opportunity to explain its position on the provisions and the constitutionality of the government-sponsored Bill T/1202, which incorporates measures regulating the documentation of cabinet sessions.   

Hungary continues to suffer in the throes of a protracted political crisis. The history of the Third Republic had been free from political violence until recently, when the public spaces of Budapest were taken over, for varying lengths of time, by street fighters both uniformed and civilian. Equally unprecedented was the publication with impunity, in the October 17 issue of a daily closely linked to one of the political factions, of language purely insane on any level of textual interpretation, which incited racially motivated violence so extreme as to include murder. Such phenomena fill almost every Hungarian citizen with well-founded trepidation. without regard to political standpoint. This anxiety is only aggravated if the police responds to violence by violating laws in its turn. Irrespectively of where each of us hopes to glimpse the way out of the political crisis, everyone concerned about the fate of democracy in this country should concur that the solution must be a peaceful one and remain within parliamentary limits. And it is the shared responsibility of the incumbent government and the opposition to ensure that this is how it will be.   

In the view of the Eötvös Károly Institute, in a constitutional democracy it is inadmissible, no matter the heat of the election campaign, to insinuate to mayors or municipalities that they will forfeit access to certain resources and funds if they vote “wrong” and the “righteous” side wins. The democratic politician making such insinuations must shoulder the political consequences.   

Having reviewed the bill, after its submission to Parliament, that seeks to codify new provisions regulating secrecy and classification, the Eötvös Károly Institute addressed a request to all Members of Parliament. Read the text of the address here.   

On the invitation of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, Minorities and Religious Affairs, the Eötvös Károly Institute reviewed the Bill on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations. Read the text of this assessment here.   

   

The Electronic Freedom of Information Act, passed by the National Assembly on July 4, 2005, was for the most part drafted and sponsored by the Eötvös Károly Institute.   

Pursuant to the Constitution of the Third Republic, the head of the Hungarian state is the President, who embodies the unity of the nation and watches over the democratic functioning of state executive power.   

The constitutional enshrinement of freedom of information, and its efficacious protection by the Constitutional Court for the ensuing decade and a half, amount to one of the most remarkable achievements of the constitutional revolution in Hungary.   

“It is morning, and I am now reading your e-mail you sent last night, in which you anticipate to announce your initiative some time today concerning ‘video broadcasting and archiving online.’”   

Despite the fact that the sources comprising the community law of the European Union became effective in Hungary as of May 1, 2004, no official Hungarian translation of these legal texts will be available for the foreseeable future, due to a backlog of translation work, as well as delays in authentication and comprehensive publication in an official journal. In an effort to shed light on this situation, the Eötvös Károly Institute addressed questions to the Ministry of Justice.   

The other day, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Hungary publicly unveiled certain proposals that may have implications for the foundations of the country’s constitutional regime and the relationship between Hungarian citizens and the European Union. Read the comments of the Eötvös Károly Institute here.   

“Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act, no person shall be taken into custody except on a well-founded suspicion of a felony, most notably in the case of being caught in the act, and not unless his or her pre-trial detention seems most probable.”   

Exercising his powers under § 26 (2) of the Constitution, the President of the Republic returned to the National Assembly the already passed “Hospital Act” for further consideration. In response, the Speaker of the House, citing the impending summer vacation of representatives, convened an extraordinary meeting following the regular session earlier in the day–the same day the President had announced his veto. This extraordinary meeting ended with the legislators passing the Act a second time.   

Following the condemnation of Hungary by the Centrist Democrat International (formerly Christian Democratic International) in Lisbon, the debate on the state of human rights in Hungary is more heated than ever.   

The Eötvös Károly Institute requested the Minister to comment on changes in the exchange rate of the Hungarian currency.   

More than a decade after the constitutional revolution in this country, disclosure by the courts remains regulated by provisions that are unacceptable both formally and in terms of substance.   

In the opinion of the Eötvös Károly Institute, it is the duty of the government to formulate and submit for public debate its position on fundamental issues dividing the European Union, including that of common defense and foreign policy, and the controversial points of the EU Constitution now taking shape. The low voter turnout at the referendum deciding on accession has directed attention to the neglect of governments to date: Their failure to responsibly publicize information and the ensuing absence of pertinent public debate led to a very low awareness of the importance of membership.