The paradox of judicial dialogue with the European Court of Justice in an illiberal democracy
The recent experience with the Hungarian Constitutional Court
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.72.07Abstract
The growth of populist national forms of governance in some EU Member States has caused a marked deterioration in the respect for democracy and the rule of law. The actions of these illiberal governments have led to the capture of those institutions designed to guarantee the rule of law, including constitutional courts. Some of these courts, mindful of the protection of national sovereignty and responding to the CJEU’s case law promoting judicial independence, have refused to recognise the binding nature on them of the rulings of the CJEU. The Hungarian Constitutional Court (HCC) was recently given the opportunity to follow its sister courts in Germany, Poland and Romania in the Refugee Pushback case but refused to do so. The work examines the broader EU and more specific domestic constitutional contexts in order to understand the HCC’s cautious approach and avoidance of a direct confrontation with the CJEU. It analyses how the HCC, in exceptional cases and in an ultima ratio manner, could use three types of control to verify, in the exercise of the
competences shared between the EU and the Member States, whether it infringes
the essential content of a fundamental right (fundamental rights review), the sovereignty
of Hungary (sovereignty review or ultra vires review) as well as its constitutional
identity (constitutional identity review). However, at the same time, the HCC
balances the protection of the national constitutional order with the EU’s duty of
sincere cooperation in the form of judicial dialogue with the CJEU.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.