Lilla Berkes

The modern-day history of asylum in Hungary ranges from being the country of origin of refugees, through the country of asylum, to the country protecting the external borders of the European Union (EU) and rejecting the refugees. Asylum, which came into focus as a result of the Arab Spring in 2015, has raised numerous issues such as access to territory, pushbacks, procedural guarantees, detention, transit zones, the effectiveness of remedies, and sovereignty and free decisionmaking on the side of the state. These issues may also have a constitutional dimension. However, a review of the practice of the Hungarian Constitutional Court shows that asylum issues are not grouped along these lines, but rather as per the division of competences between the EU and Hungary. Consequently, some constitutional court procedures have been examined in the context of constitutional interpretation rather than that of constitutional complaint procedures. Furthermore, the constitutional context has changed, influencing the approach of the Constitutional Court. Based on this, the paper first interprets the relationship between asylum and sovereignty and the function of the Constitutional Court in asylum matters, placing the issue in the context of the history of asylum in Hungary. Second, it presents the related practice of the Constitutional Court according to three aspects, namely sovereignty and constitutional identity, the role of human dignity, and interpretation of asylum law by the Constitutional Court.

In Hungary, government liability in tort was affected by the constitutional change that occurred after 1989. A new provision clearly stating government liability replaced the old one. A public body that acts unlawfully and causes damages to others is thus liable in tort, just like any private individual would be. Moreover, judicial review is no longer conceived as an extraordinary remedy. However, substantively, the basic premise is not that illegality in itself will give rise to damages liability, especially when the administration exercises discretionary powers. Moreover, the claimant must bring an administrative appeal before a judicial remedy is available. These appeals have been partially reshaped by the new Administrative Procedure Act (2018), which is important also for the procedural requirements it sets out with regard to the discharge of administrative functions and powers. Both EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights are increasingly relevant in this respect.

Magyarország EU-tagsága viszonylag hosszú időn keresztül nem vetett fel olyan jelentősebb alkotmányossági vitákat, melyekre az Alkotmánybíróságnak kellett (volna) megadnia a választ. Ebből fakadóan viszonylag későn kellett érdemi vizsgálatot folytatnia olyan kérdésekben, mint az alkotmány helye és szerepe, annak védelme, a tagállami jog, illetve a tagállami hatáskörök megítélése az uniós jog tükrében. 2016-tól kezdődően ugyanakkor „útkeresésbe” kezdett az Alkotmánybíróság, melyben megkísérelte megfogalmazni azokat a sajátos értékeket, melyeket minden mást megelőzően védelemben részesít az uniós jog, illetve hatáskörök érintettsége esetén is. Ebben az útkeresésben a külföldi minták mellett egyre növekvő szerepet játszott az Alaptörvény identitásteremtő jellege és annak révén történeti alkotmányunk vívmányainak felfedezése is.

In: Gerencsér Balázs; Takács Péter (szerk.): Ratio legis, ratio iuris: liber amicorum: studia A. Tamás septuagenario dedicata: ünnepi tanulmányok Tamás András tiszteletére 70. születésnapja alkalmából
Budapest: Szent István Társulat, pp 22-29 (2011)