Samenvatting

Since 14 May 2010 Fidesz and KDNP form the Hungarian Parliament. Together, they gained 263 seats: a two-third majority. Viktor Orbán, who leads Fidesz, became the Prime Minister of Hungary. Orbán and his large majority triggered a so called 'national revolution'. Several controversial bills have been introduced, like the new media law, the central bank law and the Fundamental Law itself. The introduction of these laws have been heavily criticized by various European and international institutions. According to those institution, the Hungarian laws are incompatible with European law, standards, and values. This dissertation focuses on the question: "How should Europe deal with the introduction of the Fundamental Law of Hungary?"
In the light of answering this question, it is important to know whether there was a need for a new constitution. In practice, the former constitution, together with its amendments, was functioning satisfactory. However, in theory, there was indeed a necessity for a new constitution because the former constitution, Act No. XX of 1949, was a temporary one.
It is also important to be aware of the exact reason why the Fundamental Law has been criticized and if the points of criticism are well-founded. The criticism on the Fundamental Law can be divided into criticism on the creation and criticism on the content of the Fundamental Law. The biggest bottleneck regarding the creation of the Fundamental Law is the time span. It was created in less than a year, which means that only a minimum of time was arranged for the creation, discussions, and improvements. It also seems that actions undertaken during this period, like the consultation of Hungarian institution by the ad hoc parliamentary commission, the creation of the personal advisory committee of Orbán, and the use of the questionnaire, are more or less a show. The criticism on the content of the Fundamental Law is based on the use of symbolism, the way sentences are formulated, the apparent influence of the Catholic church, the step back in social security, the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank, judiciary, and the data protection supervisor, and the cardinal acts.
When it comes to the response to the questionable time span of the creation of the Fundamental Law, Europe could and can only criticize it. When a law is created according to the country's democratic rules, and theoretically the Fundamental Law is, one cannot undertake action against the creation. However, concerning the criticism on the content, Europe can and should act towards Hungary. Naturally, Europe is already active in the Hungarian situation. On 8 June 2011, the European Parliament already held a debate about the, at that time, Fundamental Law in the making.
In December 2011, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union stopped negotiations about financial help for Hungary. Only a month later the European Commission started three infringement procedures. Three letters were sent to Orbán, explaining him that Hungary had to adapt its legislation concerning the independence of the central bank, the judiciary, and the supervising authority of data protection. The first infringement proceeding has been dropped by now, because the European Commission was satisfied by the promise that Hungary would adapt the central bank law. However, the other two infringement procedures are still in progress. In my opinion, the European Commission should continue its infringement procedures and when it eventually does seem necessary, it should also impose a fine or penalty, based on Article III-265. Sanctions by the European Union are another response possibility for Europe, but I would rather advise in favor of using Article 7 of the TEU. Based on this article, the European Union can decide to suspend certain rights which Hungary, as a member state of the European Union, normally has. Besides the European Union and the European Commission, the Council of Europe should be part of the response towards Hungary as well. When Hungary became a member of the Council of Europe, it signed the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Consequently, Hungary is obliged to respect the rights and freedom laid down in this convention. Any citizen who believes that Hungary lacks this respect, can test this by means of the convention in the European Court of Justice.
Finally, Europe should stay privy in the Hungarian situation. The Fundamental Law is only a framework and 39 other domains are waiting to be regulated in cardinal acts. In case of any further lack of respect towards democratic and European values, the European institutions should act again.