The aim of this paper is to present the regulations in force in Hungary in the field of parliamentary disciplinary law and parliamentary law enforcement. At the time of completing my other paper in November 2019[1], a draft bill envisaging a major tightening of disciplinary provisions was already under discussion. For this reason, I consider it essential to write a paper on the changes in the relevant area of law, covering the reasons for the change in legislation, the process of the change and the current disciplinary measures. At the end of the paper, I will present the practical application of the amended legislation, drawing on relevant events since the amendment.
According to Antal Ádám, disciplinary law was developed "to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament and the smooth conduct of sittings and debates, to prevent, eliminate and appropriately sanction certain irregular activities of Members within Parliament disrupting debates and sittings, undermining the authority of Parliament and offending parliamentary decency and the human dignity of fellow Members or other declared values"[2]. Parliamentary disciplinary law is therefore a set of legal instruments designed to maintain and preserve parliamentary order in plenary and committee sittings and to appropriately penalise offenders.[3]
According to Szente, "Parliamentary disciplinary law is a set of rules which, in order to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament and the authority of the legislature, define the cases of breach of the duties of Members of Parliament and impose enforceable sanctions."[4] On this basis, the purpose of disciplinary law is twofold: to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament and to preserve the authority of the legislature. This is particularly important because the laws passed by the National Assembly are binding on everyone, so it is essential that the highest level of legislation is passed legitimately.[5] According to the Constitutional Court, the calm, smooth and balanced functioning of the National Assembly is a prerequisite for the definition and implementation of its tasks.[6] The disciplinary rules are therefore also justified by the nature of the Parliament as
- 44/45 -
the supreme representative body of the people. Sanctioning certain behaviour does not mean suppressing opposition opinion, but "civilising it and preserving the dignity and functioning of the House".[7]
The effective and smooth functioning of Parliament therefore requires parliamentary discipline.[8] According to Paragraph (7) of Article 5 of the Fundamental Law, in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the National Assembly and to preserve its dignity, the Speaker of the National Assembly shall exercise the law enforcement and disciplinary powers provided for in the provisions of the Rules of Procedure. The detailed regulations of disciplinary law was introduced into public law with the adoption of Act XXXVI of 2012 on the National Assembly (hereinafter: National Assembly Act), thus filling the gap that had existed since the political changes in 1989-1990. Previously, only the Rules of Procedure provided for disciplinary measures, but these were limited to returning to the subject, silencing and interruption of the sitting.[9] The legislator's aim in enacting statutory regulations was to curb behaviour that undermines the authority of the National Assembly and deliberately obstructs its proper functioning.[10]
According to the Fundamental Law, the Speaker of the National Assembly is the person holding law enforcement and disciplinary powers. The Chair of a Plenary Session shall be responsible for ensuring the smooth conduct of the Plenary Session and, to the extent necessary to fulfil this function, the Chairs of a Plenary Session may also exercise disciplinary and law enforcement powers.[11] To this end, they have a set of strict disciplinary legal instruments at their disposal, which I will explain in more detail later.
In the 2014-2018 cycle, the use of disciplinary measures was relatively rare. Only on a few occasions did the chairs of sessions use the sanction of silencing, instead warning was sufficient. Exclusions from sittings took place in a total of three cases: once immediately approved by the National Assembly, and twice deemed the Chair's decision to be lawful. No more serious type of this or suspension of Members' rights took place at all. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on several occasions for breaches of the rules on the presentation of evidence and for disturbing the order of the session. In most cases, these have ended with a reduction in the Members' honoraria.[12]
In total, remunerations were reduced in nine instances in the 20102014 cycle (one of which was the result of behaviour in a committee sitting[13]). In seven of these cases[14], Members' honoraria were reduced on the basis of Paragraph (4) of Section 49 of the National Assembly Act, and only once[15] on the basis of Paragraph (1) of Section 50. Under Paragraph (4) of Section 49, sanctions were imposed mainly for the use of megaphones, demonstrations with tarpaulin banners and placards, and the releasing of bal-
- 45/46 -
loons in the chamber, and in one case opposition Members threw the flags of the chamber out of the windows of the Parliament. In the 2014-2018 cycle, MPs' honoraria were reduced a total of twenty-two times, all for unauthorised viewing.
It is worth looking at the disciplinary events of the first year of the current cycle to get to the reasons for the change in legislation. Forty-five times in the year or so after the election, the sanction of honorarium reduction was applied to "disorderly" Members. Interestingly, these forty-five disciplinary cases came together in just two plenary sessions. Seven incidents[16] occurred during the sitting of 10 December 2018, when Members disrupted and obstructed the work of the National Assembly with "whistling, loud shouting and then continuous whistling"[17]. The basis for the reduction of the honorarium in all seven cases was Paragraph (4) of Section 49 of the National Assembly Act, as the Members' conduct had violated the order and authority of the National Assembly. According to the reasoning, "the Members did not merely express their protest, but also their intention to prevent the adoption of the agenda. The adoption of the agenda of the National Assembly is also of paramount importance in the decision-making process, since the session and the sitting cannot continue until the agenda is adopted."[18] So the action of the Members in preventing the adoption of the agenda was capable of making the functioning of the National Assembly impossible.
The other thirty-eight cases all took place during the sitting on 12 December 2018. On this sitting day, 29 Members earned the sanction of honorarium reduction by "physically blocking the access to the Speaker's and speech-maker's rostrum, standing in front of its steps, thus preventing the Chair of the sitting from coming up to the podium and taking his seat"[19]. As the Members had used physical force, the reduction of their honoraria was based on Paragraph (1) of Article 50 of the National Assembly Act, while in the other nine cases it was based on Paragraph (4) of Section 49 (use of banners without permission, distribution of paper tickets). It is interesting to see that in the first year of the current cycle, the National Assembly has imposed more honorarium cuts than in the previous two cycles combined. In relation to the events of the session, the Constitutional Court ruled that "conduct aimed at preventing the decision-making procedure of the National Assembly by unlawful means is ultimately aimed at the constitutional functioning of the state. Such conduct is inconsistent with the Fundamental Law."[20]
While the events of December 2018 justified the tightening of the disciplinary rules, the legislator also took into account the findings of principle in the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In Karácsony and Others v. Hungary and Szél and Others v. Hungary, the applicants went to the Strasbourg Court complaining that they had been fined by the Speaker of the National Assembly for their disruptive behaviour.
- 46/47 -
The case went to the Grand Chamber, which ruled that "there is an overriding public interest in ensuring that Parliament, while respecting the right to free debate, can function effectively and fulfil its mission in democratic societies." The Court ruled that while freedom of debate in the National Assembly is fundamental in democratic societies, it can in no way be unlimited. For this reason, they recognise the need for each Member State's parliament to draw up and apply disciplinary rules. At the same time, individual internal rules may not contain provisions that would allow the majority to abuse its dominant position.[21]
The Court therefore ruled that restrictions were necessary in certain cases, but that "the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression was not 'necessary in a democratic society' and therefore violated Article 10 of the Convention.'[22] The judgment also drew attention to the shortcoming that the applicants did not have an adequate remedy at the time the decision was taken, thereby Hungary also violated Article 13 on the right to an effective remedy. For the above reasons, the court condemned Hungary. The judgment of the Grand Chamber also laid down the procedural conditions to be applied in proceedings against a Member who infringes the Rules of Procedure: the sanction shall be duly reasoned and an effective remedy shall be available to the Member in which he or she may express his or her views.[23]
In addition to the above, the Venice Commission report on "The role of the opposition in a democratic parliament" also addresses the issue of disciplinary law. This means that the opposition shall carry out its duties in compliance with the law. If they disagree with a piece of legislation, they may propose an amendment to it, but they shall continue to respect the rules in force until the amendment is made.[24]
As explained above, the amendment of the disciplinary regulations adopted in 2012 has become necessary in the current cycle. This was due not only to the emergence of increasingly serious and frequent disciplinary offences, but also to compliance with the findings of principle in the ECtHR judgment. In the light of recent events and the growing tempers in the Chamber, it was not surprising that a draft bill was tabled to reform Hungarian disciplinary law. The revision and tightening of the regulations is also justified by the fact that Hungarian political culture has undergone a major transformation since the political changes in 1989-1990, and the previous legislation was sometimes not sufficiently clear and unambiguous, and problems have emerged in the practical application of the legislation.
The draft bill on the amendment of certain acts affecting the functioning of the National Assembly and the legal status of Members of Parliament is an independent motion by Máté Kocsis, László Böröcz, István Bajkai, Dr Imre Vejkey, János Halász, Péter Harrach, Csaba Hende and Lőrinc Nacsa, Members of the governing party. The draft bill was
- 47/48 -
submitted via Parlex on 12 November 2019. The draft bill was later joined by Gábor Bányai, Zsolt Csenger-Zalán, István Boldog, Csaba Nagy, Kristóf Szatmáry, Dávid Ádám Héjj, Gábor Riz, Ferenc Koncz, Judit Czunyiné dr. Bertalan and László Salacz, Members from the governing party. At the same time as the draft bill, a proposal for decision No H/8042 on the amendment of Decision No 10/2014 (24 February) of the Hungarian National Assembly on certain provisions of its Rules of Procedure was submitted. The 46-sec-tion amendment and the 78-section proposal for resolution implied a major change to parliamentary law.
Given that a draft bill tabled by a Member of Parliament can only be included in the Order Book of the Hungarian National Assembly if it is supported by a standing committee appointed by the Speaker[25], the first step is the procedure of including it in the Order Book. On 13 November, the Speaker of the National Assembly appointed the Committee on Justice[26] to take a decision on the inclusion in the Order Book. At the committee's meeting on 18 November, after the opposition members of the committee expressed their strong disagreement[27], the draft bill was included in the Order Book by 7 votes in favour, 3 against and 0 abstentions.[28] The draft bill was then ready to be put on the plenary agenda.
The draft bill No T/8044 and the proposal for resolution No H/8042 were discussed in plenary session in a joint general debate on 20 November. The general debate was finally held in two parts on the same day. At the beginning of the day, there was an opening speech by the proposer, a speech by the Member of the Government (as it is not a government proposal), a speech by the representative/advocate for national minorities and a speech by the first independent member. Further speeches by Members were possible during the "continuation and closure of the joint general debate" scheduled for the end of the day. The reason for this split was presumably to allow the expected lengthy general debate to take place after the other general debates scheduled for the day had been concluded, without delaying their discussion. The marathon debate started at 23 o'clock and lasted until 14 o'clock the next day. During the almost 15-hour debate, Márta Mátrai said that "the orderly functioning of the Parliament means the orderly life of the country, and from the point of view of public authority, it means the maintenance of the country. Imagine a country's governance floundering in indecision because of a series of parliamentary anarchies".[29] According to the First Officer of the National Assembly, the tightening of disciplinary measures is also of particular importance because "a Member of the National Assembly must set an example in his or her appearance, use of the Hungarian language, culture of behaviour and respect for the legislature. The misconduct of Members reflects badly on Parliament, on Members, on the work of Members, and undermines the dignity of the National Assembly."[30]
During the lengthy debate, representatives of all opposition parties express
- 48/49 -
their disagreement with the tightening of disciplinary rules. According to Attila Mesterházy (MSZP), the governing parties have been curtailing the rights of the opposition since 2010, and he also expressed his disapproval of the fact that the opposition was not consulted before the amendments to the functioning of the House were tabled, and that a consensus solution was not put forward.[31] Tamás Harangozó (MSZP) also complained that "in a democratic country, in a decent country, no party passes an election act, a rule of procedure or a national assembly act."[32] Andrea Varga-Damm (Jobbik) also called for the proposals to be withdrawn and for them to work together to draft a good rules of procedure and a national assembly act.[33]
The detailed debate took place in the week following the conclusion of the much-debated general debate. This took place in a meeting of both the appointed Committee on Justice and the Committee on National Minorities in Hungary, which is linked to the debate. The proposal received a total of nine amendment proposals, from the opposition, which were discussed by the two committees. At the 26 November meeting of the Committee on Justice, Csaba Gyüre (Jobbik) expressed his concern that such a one-sided legislation, which does not include the positions of the opposition groups, will not be effective.[34] István Bajkai (Fidesz) reiterated that "Members of Parliament have an increased responsibility, partly by setting an example and partly by working, because lawmaking is a kind of working, in a definite and regulated order".[35] The Committee on Justice did not support any of the amendment proposals, but proposed several intentions for amendment of its own.[36] However, the Committee on National Minorities of Hungary, acting as a committee related to the debate, did not formulate its own amendment proposal.[37]
The Legislative Committee proceeded at its meeting on 5 December. The committee adopted the summary amendment proposal No T/8044/17, the summary report No T/8044/18 and appointed Mrs Márta Mátrai as its rapporteur. The debate on the committee reports and the summary amendment proposals was on 9 December, where only Lóránt Keresztes László (LMP) of the opposition Members spoke. The legislative process concluded with the adoption of the summary amendment proposal and the final vote the following day, on 10 December. Before the decision, the plenary session decided to maintain seven, opposition, amendment proposals, all of which were rejected. As a qualified majority was required for the adoption of several points of both the summary amendment proposal and the single proposal, both votes were taken in two parts. The provisions requiring qualified majority and the provisions requiring simple majority of the summary amendment proposal and the single proposal were adopted by the National Assembly with 135 votes in favour, 54 against and 0 abstentions.[38] The adopted draft bill was signed by the Speaker on 12 December[39] and sent to the President of the Republic, who promulgated it on 17 December. The text of the act was
- 49/50 -
published in issue 206 of the Hungarian Official Journal on 17 December.
According to the second sentence of Paragraph (7) of Article 5 of the Fundamental Law, "in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the National Assembly and to preserve its dignity, the Speaker of the National Assembly shall exercise the law enforcement and disciplinary powers provided for in the provisions of the Rules of Procedure". This provision declares the disciplinary and law enforcement powers of the Speaker at the level of the Fundamental Law, and the detailed regulations are to be found in Chapters 18-19 of the National Assembly Act. As I have already mentioned, disciplinary measures are not only the responsibility of the Speaker, but also of the Chair of the sitting and of the National Assembly itself. "During the sitting of Parliament, it shall be the duty of the Chair of the sitting to ensure the smooth conduct of the sitting and to preserve the authority of the National Assembly, assisted by the clerk assisting in the conduct of the sitting and by any clerk, vice-chair or first officer called upon by the Chair to maintain order of the discussion."[40] This is a major change compared to the previous rules, as it gives the Chair of the sitting the possibility to invite other officers of the National Assembly present in the chamber to assist in maintaining the order of the discussion. According to Paragraph (2) of Section 45 of the National Assembly Act, "the chair of the sitting may request the clerk assisting in the chairing of the sitting or any clerk, vice-chair and first officer present in the Chamber to assist in the cessation of the unlawful conduct referred to in Sections 46/C-46/G." In addition to the general obligation to cooperate in the maintenance of order, in the event of serious disruption of the operational order of the National Assembly, the Chair of the meeting may also request the personal cooperation of the officers present in order to put an end to any illegal behaviour.[41] It is important to underline that the lawful conduct of the officers in order to maintain the order of the discussion does not render them liable to the legal consequences of the conduct provided for in Articles 46/E to 46/F (exclusion from the sitting/day and immediate expulsion).[42] Essentially, if the requested officer does not comply with the request, he or she may be removed from office.
Another new regulatory element is that the Act extends the personal scope of the disciplinary rules not only to Members, but also to other persons attending plenary sittings. However, the legal consequences that can be imposed on them are limited or, in some cases, completely excluded. Consequently, only a reprimand and a warning may be given to a person attending in a consultative capacity or a person authorised to act as his or her substitute, but no more serious measures.[43] Paragraph (4) of Section 45 also stipulates that it shall also apply to the Hungarian Members of the European Parliament (hereinafter: MEPs).
- 50/51 -
The amendment systematises the types of conduct that are contrary to disciplinary law and differentiates them according to the seriousness of each offence. The regulation defines each type of behaviour in relation to the values it seeks to protect. It allows a legal consequence to be imposed if the act is likely to damage the authority of the institution, disturb order or interfere in the exercise of the rights of others. Compared to the previous regulations, a new regulatory element is the interference with the speech and the conduct of the sitting, the disruption of the discussions and the voting process, as well as the disturbance or obstruction of other Members or officials in the exercise of their rights and duties.[44]
The regulations include the following types of disciplinary legal consequences:
- reprimand
- warning
- silencing
- exclusion from the sitting
- reduction of Member's honorarium
- immediate banning
- subsequent banning.
In the following, I will go through the applicable sanctions, their level and the subject of the legal consequence based on each conduct. As a preliminary point, several sanctions can be applied in parallel for the same conduct.
The first type of conduct covered is when a Member makes a manifestly unjustified digression from the subject during his or her speech or unnecessarily repeats his or her own or someone else's speech in the same debate. In this case, the subject of the sanction may be not only a Member, but also any person in a consultative capacity or entitled to substitute a Member pursuant to Paragraph (3) of Section 45 of the National Assembly Act. In this case, the chair of the sitting first reprimands or warns the speaker; if this is not successful, the right to speak is withdrawn.[45] If the recalcitrant Member fails to cease his or her conduct despite repeated reprimands or warnings from the chair of the sitting, he or she shall leave the Chamber immediately pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Section 46/H and shall not be allowed to remain in the Chamber on the day of the sitting, except during voting time. In this case, the Member also fails to comply with the measures taken to ensure the smooth running of the sitting and to safeguard the authority of Parliament and the rights of others. In such cases, the law itself obliges the Member to leave the Chamber, so the legal consequence is established by operation of law and no further action is required.[46]
Pursuant to Point (b) of Paragraph (1) of Section 46 of the National Assembly Act, a Member who blatantly disturbs a speech or the conduct of the sitting may be reprimanded or warned by the chair of the sitting. The sanction may be imposed on MPs or MEPs. If the former sanction is ineffective, the chair may exercise the right to withdraw the right to speak, i.e. silencing. If a reprimand or warning is not effective, the Speaker shall reduce the Member's honorarium by a minimum of half a month and a maximum of one month. Honorarium
- 51/52 -
reduction is a mandatory sanction to be imposed on a Member by operation of law, and the Speaker only considers the elements of the offence and the level of the sanction. If the reprimand and warning are ineffective, Paragraph (1) of Section 46/H shall also apply by operation of law.
Under Section 46/A, in the event of a challenge to the decision of the chair of the sitting or to the conduct of the sitting, the chair of the sitting may withdraw the right to speak without reprimand or warning. In this case, the sanction may be imposed on MPs and MEPs. Under Paragraph (1) of Section 46/A, a Member who has been deprived of the right to speak shall not be allowed to speak during the same day's sitting on the same agenda item, but may request the ad hoc opinion of the committee responsible for the interpretation of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure (the Rules Committee). So this is the remedy available to those who have been silenced without warning. If the conduct is not stopped despite repeated reprimands or warnings, Paragraph (1) of Section 46/H shall also apply.
A Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament who uses a language or an indecent expression or commits any other act that damages the authority of the National Assembly, the dignity of the sitting, or a person or group, in particular a national, ethnic, racial or religious community, may first be reprimanded or warned by the Chair of the sitting.[47] Should this prove ineffective, he or she may resort to silencing, honorarium reduction or subsequent banning. The rate of honorarium reduction may be a minimum of one and a maximum of two months of the Member's honorarium. A Member who has been silienced because the warning was ineffective may be subject to the legal consequence of a subsequent banning. It may be ordered only by the Speaker, either on the written initiative of the chair of the sitting or of the leader of a parliamentary group or ex officio. In this case, the maximum duration is three sitting days.[48] Pursuant to Paragraph (3) of Section 47, the Speaker shall make his or her decision within fifteen days of the conduct and shall immediately notify the Member concerned in writing of his or her reasoned decision. If the conduct of the Member is not stopped despite repeated reprimands or warnings, Paragraph (1) of Section 46/H shall also apply.
A more serious case of this is when a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament uses a blatantly insulting or intimidating expression or other such act against the authority of the National Assembly, the dignity of the sitting, a person or a group, in particular a national, ethnic, racial or religious community. A Member who engages in such conduct may be excluded from the day of the sitting or from the sitting or may be immediately banned by the chair of the sitting.[49] The duration of the exclusion may vary depending on the seriousness of the conduct: the remainder of the sitting day or the whole sitting. However, this legal consequence does not restrict the participation of the excluded Mem-
- 52/53 -
ber in the decision-making process, as he or she may return to the Chamber and cast his or her vote during the decision-making process.[50] If the Member who has been excluded does not comply with the demand to leave the Chamber, the chair of the sitting may, by oral decision, order an immediate ban. In order to ensure the right to an effective legal remedy, a detailed and reasoned written notification of the decision is required within three working days.[51] The duration of the immediate ban is 15 calendar days. In the case of a ban imposed by the chair of the sitting, the law lays down a uniform duration, since it is not possible to assess the seriousness of the conduct and determine the sanction accordingly while chairing the sitting.[52] In the event of the above conduct, the honorarium will also be reduced by a minimum of two and a maximum of four months' honorarium. If a Member who has been immediately banned fails to leave the Chamber despite being told to do so, the maximum reduction in the honorarium will be doubled (up to a maximum of eight months).[53] MEPs may not be subject to honorarium reductions. In addition to an immediate ban, there is also the possibility of a subsequent ban, in this case for a maximum period of 6 session days or 15 calendar days. The duration of this type of ban is not determined uniformly by the law, but according to the seriousness of the individual conduct. Banning is a more severe sanction than exclusion, since the banned Member is obliged to leave not only the Chamber but also all the buildings of the National Assembly, the Office Building of the National Assembly and the Office of the Hungarian National Assembly, and may not enter them during the period of the ban.[54] If the conduct of the Member is not stopped despite repeated reprimands or warnings, Paragraph (1) of Section 46/H shall also apply by operation of law.
According to the reasoning of the draft bill, the institution of banning replaces the suspension of the rights of Members, but only entails the suspension of the rights of Members related to the physical presence in the National Assembly and its buildings. A banned Member may continue to exercise his or her voting rights during the period of the ban. The first case of this occurs when there is an open ballot in Parliament. In such cases, the banned Member may cast his or her vote by proxy: he or she may give a proxy mandate for the entire period of the ban to the leader of the parliamentary group, who may not refuse the mandate. If the leader of the parliamentary group is prevented from attending, the deputy leader designated by the leader shall take his or her place. If the banned Member is the leader of a parliamentary group, he or she may give a mandate to his or her deputy leader to exercise his or her right to vote, or, in the case of an independent Member, to a Member of his or her choice. Pursuant to Paragraph (5) of Section 49/A, the mandated member shall exercise his or her voting rights on behalf of and in accordance with the mandate of the banned member: they may even agree in advance, in writing, on the voting intention. If, after a machine vote, he or she considers that the
- 53/54 -
result in the register is not the one he or she intended, he or she may report it to the Clerks of Parliament within one day (although this does not change the result announced).[55] In the case of a secret ballot, the law also allows a banned representative to vote in person. In such cases, he or she may cast his or her vote at the same time as his or her fellow Members, but in the room designated by the Speaker.[56]
Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Rule 46/C, a Member or MEP who violates the provisions of the Rules of Procedure concerning presentation (e.g.: a banner, presentational clothing) may be reprimanded or warned by the chair of the sitting, and if this is ineffective, the right to speak may be withdrawn, and the sanction of honorarium reduction or subsequent banning may be applied. The amount of the honorarium reduction is a minimum of one month and a maximum of two months of the Member's honorarium. This legal consequence cannot be applied against an MEP. The maximum duration of a subsequent ban is 3 sitting days or 8 calendar days. If the conduct of the Member is not stopped despite repeated reprimands or warnings, Paragraph (1) of Section 46/H shall also apply.
The next case of conduct covered by disciplinary measures is, pursuant to Section 46/E, where a Member or MEP disrupts the proceedings of a sitting, debate or vote, or obstructs a participant in a plenary sitting in the exercise of his or her rights or duties. If the conduct of the Member is not stopped despite repeated reprimands or Paragraph (1) of Section 46/H shall also apply, i.e. he or she shall immediately leave the Chamber. The chair of the sitting may exclude the recalcitrant Member from the day or sitting in question or order his or her immediate banning. In all cases, the duration is 15 calendar days. The Speaker may reduce the Member's honorarium by a minimum of two months and a maximum of four months in the event of such behaviour[57], which is not applicable to MEPs. The maximum duration of a subsequent ban is 6 sitting days or 15 calendar days.[58]
It is even more serious conduct if a Member of Parliament or MEP obstructs the proceedings of a sitting, debate or vote, or prevents a participant in a sitting of the National Assembly from exercising his or her rights or fulfilling his or her obligations.[59] Whereas in the previous case the conduct was "interference", in the present case it must be "obstruction". This incident is probably a reflection of the one on 12 December 2018, when opposition Members prevented the chair of the sitting from going up to the speaker's podium and chairing the sitting from there. In this case, the chair of the sitting no longer has the option of excluding, but can order an immediate ban without warning or reprimand. In all cases, the duration is 15 calendar days. The amount of reduction is a minimum of four months and a maximum of six months of the Member's honorarium[60], and the maximum period of the subsequent ban is 12 sitting days or 30 calendar days[61]. It can be seen that the legislation sanctions obstruction much more severely than interfering. If the
- 54/55 -
conduct of the Member is not stopped despite repeated reprimands or warnings, Paragraph (1) of Section 46/H shall also apply.
Finally, the most serious conduct is the case under Section 46/G, where a Member of Parliament or MEP directly threatens to use physical violence, calls for the use of physical violence, obstructs the removal of others or uses physical violence during a sitting of the National Assembly. In this case, the chair of the sitting may order an immediate ban for a period of 15 calendar days. If the Member who has been banned fails to leave the Chamber when requested to do so, the maximum amount of honorarium reduction that may be applied to him or her shall be doubled (twelve months). The Speaker may reduce a Member's honorarium by a minimum of four months and a maximum of six months[62], and may also impose a subsequent ban for a maximum of 24 sitting days or 60 calendar days[63].
The amendment regulates in detail the legal remedies available to the sanctioned member in order to comply with the findings of principle in the ECtHR judgment. If the chair of the sitting silences a Member without reprimanding or warning him or her for contesting the conduct of the sitting, the Member who has been so silenced may request the opinion of the Rules Committee.[64] For the other sanctions applied, the appeal proceeding has become two-stage: first the procedure of the Committee on Immunity, Conflict of Interests, Discipline and Mandates (hereinafter: Immunity Committee)[65], then the decision of the National Assembly[66]. In the case of a measure taken either by the Speaker or by the chair of the sitting, the Member may, within eight days of the written notification of the decision, request the Immunity Committee to declare that the measure was not necessary[67] or to repeal the decision[68]. If the Member so requests in his or her application, he or she shall be heard by the Immunity Committee during its proceedings, and may be present at the Committee sitting regardless of any ban he or she may be subject to.[69] The Immunity Committee shall inform the Member immediately of the decision taken and of the expiry of the time-limit for taking a decision without result.[70] If the request is granted by the Committee, the measure against the Member shall not be enforced and the procedure shall be terminated[71]. If the Committee does not grant the request or does not decide on the matter within the time limit, the Member may, within eight days, initiate a decision by the National Assembly: in the case of a measure taken by the Chair of the sitting, the plenary sitting shall uphold the measure or declare that no measure was necessary; in the case of a decision by the Speaker, it shall maintain the measure in force or repeal it.[72] In addition to the two instances for appeal, the Speaker also appears as an instance for appeal. In the event of an exclusion or immediate banning ordered by the chair of the sitting, the Speaker may, within five days of the imposition of the legal consequence, exceptionally, ex officio, acting in his or her discretion, terminate the measure against the Member. He or she shall immediately inform the Member,
- 55/56 -
the chair of the sitting and the chair of the Immunity Committee of his or her decision.[73]
The provisions of the amendment concerning disciplinary law entered into force on 1 February 2020. In the more than a year since then, no major disciplinary offence has been committed, such as the events that directly triggered the amendment. The following are three events where the Speaker has applied a honorarium cut.
At the session of 19 October 2020, during the hour of immediate questions and answers, Péter Jakab, leader of the Jobbik parliamentary group, addressed an immediate question to the Prime Minister. In response, he picked up a sack of potatoes and started towards the Prime Minister between the benches. In the meantime, the chair of the sitting repeatedly warned him to stop the offending conduct, but to no avail. Then Speaker László Kövér - from his seat in the chamber - called on the Member to leave the benches, which he did only when he could not hand the bag to the Prime Minister because of the government party MPs. In so doing, the Member acted in a manner that offended the order and dignity of the sitting of the National Assembly. In his decision, the Speaker, referring to Point (c) of Paragraph (1) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act, shall reduce the honorarium of the Member by an amount equal to his two-monthly salary, which shall be HUF 4,413,600.[74]
The Member then initiated proceedings before the Immunity Committee[75], which did not grant his request.[76] The Member then appealed to the National Assembly to repeal the decision to cut the honorarium[77], but the plenary session upheld the cut with 115 votes in favour, 51 against and 2 abstentions[78].
On 16 March 2021, during the reply of the state secretary to Ágnes Vadai's speech before the agenda, the Member interrupted the government's comment by shouting continuously. Despite being repeatedly reprimanded and warned of the legal consequences, the Member did not cease her unlawful conduct and did not comply with the request to leave the Chamber. The Speaker, acting within the scope of his powers under point (a) of Paragraph (1) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act, reduced the honorarium of the Member by the amount of one month, the amount of which is HUF 2,058,360.
The Member then turned to the Immunity Committee, and when the Committee did not grant his request, she asked the National Assembly to decide. The plenary session finally upheld the Speaker's measure by adopting Proposal for Resolution No H/15900.[79]
The third relevant event occurred recently: On 1 March 2021, Bence Tordai rushed towards Finance Minister Mihály Varga during the hour of immediate questions and answers, recording with his phone, holding the phone in front of the Minister's face and blocking him. He then followed the minister out into the corridor, despite a specific request from the chair of the sitting, continuing his disruptive
- 56/57 -
behaviour. The Member has thereby engaged in the conduct referred to in Section 46/E. The Speaker, acting within the scope of his powers under point (a) of Paragraph (1) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act, reduced the honorarium of the Member by the amount of four months, the amount of which is HUF 8,233,440. The Member then turned to the Immunity Committee, and when the Committee did not grant his request, he also asked the National Assembly to decide. The plenary session finally upheld the Speaker's measure by adopting Proposal for Resolution No H/16005.[80]
In the past year or so, there have been no cases of exclusion, immediate or retrospective bans.
The focus of my paper is on the existing rules of disciplinary law. In the above, I wanted to present the disciplinary measures that have changed after the amendment of the National Assembly Act and their application. It is clear that the amendment results in much stricter legal consequences being imposed for each disciplinary offence. In addition, in order to comply with the ECtHR judgment, the system of remedies against legal consequences has been regulated in detail.
In the past year or so, a relatively small number of disciplinary measures have been applied, but there has been a significant increase in the rate of fee reductions. The reduction in the number of disciplinary offences may also be due to the tightening of disciplinary rules, and the recent pandemic period may also have had an impact on Members' behaviour. ■
NOTES
* This paper was prepared in the framework of the Ministry of Justice's programmes to improve the quality of legal education.
[1] Noémi Marianna Kühár: The disciplinary and law enforcement powers of the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly. Kodifikáció és közigazgatás [Codification and public administration], 2020/1.
[2] Antal Ádám: Kifejezési szabadság és képviselői mentelmi jog [Freedom of expression and parliamentary immunity]. Magyar Jog [Hungarian Law], 1999. vol 3 p 151.
[3] József Petrétei: Az alkotmányos demokrácia alapintézményei [The fundamental institutions of constitutional democracy.]. Dialóg Campus Kiadó, Budapest-Pécs, 2009. p. 318.
[4] Szente: https://www.parlament.hu/biz38/mob/tan/szente.htm (21.08.2019) p. 2.
[5] Szente: https://www.parlament.hu/biz38/mob/tan/szente.htm (21.08.2019) p. 1.
[6] Decision No 3207/2013. (18 November) of the Constitutional Court Clause [29] of the Reasoning
[7] Péter Smuk: Ellenzéki jogok a parlamenti jogban (doktori értekezés) [Opposition rights in parliamentary law (doctoral thesis).]. Győr, 2007. p. 119.
[8] Petrétei: work cited, p. 318.
[9] Draft Bill No T/6391 (2010-2014 cycle) https://www.parlament.hu/irom39/06391/06391.pdf pp 107-108.
[10] Draft Bill No T/6391 (2010-2014 cycle) https://www.parlament.hu/irom39/06391/06391.pdf p 99.
[11] Parlamenti jog [Parliamentary Law]. Office of the Hungarian National Assembly, Budapest, 2018. p. 108.
[12] Parlamenti jog [Parliamentary Law]. Office of the Hungarian National Assembly, Budapest, 2018. p. 113.
[13] Proposal No H/13340
[14] Proposals No H/11659, H/11740, H/12979, H/13384, H/13737, H/13793, H/13794
[15] Proposal No H/11659
[16] Proposals No H/4980, H/4979, H/4978, H/4977, H/4976, H/4975, H/4605
[17] Proposal No H/4605
[18] Proposal No H/4605
[19] The reasoning to Proposal for Resolution No H/5016
[20] Clause [65] Decision No 15/2019. (17 April) of the Constitutional Court
- 57/58 -
[21] Karácsony and Others v. Hungary (applications No 42461/13 and 44357/13) Clauses [146-147.]
[22] Karácsony and Others v. Hungary (applications No 42461/13 and 44357/13) Clauses [162.]
[23] Reasoning to Draft Bill No T/8044
[24] CDL-AD (2010)025. Point 147
[25] Paragraph (1) of Section 58 of the National Assembly Act
[26] T/8044/1. https://www.parlament.hu/irom41/08044/08044-0001.pdf
[27] Minutes of the meeting of the Committee on Justice on 18 November 2019. https://www.parlament.hu/documents/static/biz41/bizjkv41/IUB/1911181.pdf pp 5-20.
[28] T/8044/2. https://www.parlament.hu/irom41/08044/08044-0002.pdf
[29] JournaloftheNationalAssembly,vol95 https://www.parlament.hu/documents/10181/1569934/ny191120-ossze.pdf/14774b60-4b88-7063-c8f1-0e44772397b7?t=1575010465603 12955.
[30] Journal of the National Assembly, vol 95, 12955.
[31] Journal of the National Assembly, vol 95, 13173.
[32] Journal of the National Assembly, vol 95, 13032.
[33] Journal of the National Assembly, vol 95, 13060.
[34] Minutes of the meeting of the Committee on Justice on 26 November 2019 https://www.parlament.hu/documents/static/biz41/bizjkv41/IUB/1911261.pdf p 24.
[35] Minutes of the meeting of the Committee on Justice on 26 November 2019, p 28.
[36] T/8044/14. https://www.parlament.hu/irom41/08044/08044-0014.pdf
[37] T/8044/15. https://www.parlament.hu/irom41/08044/08044-0015.pdf
[38] Journal of the National Assembly, vol 102, 13967-13968.
[39] T/8044/24. https://www.parlament.hu/irom41/08044/08044-0024.pdf
[40] Paragraph (1) of Section 45 of the National Assembly Act
[41] Reasoning to Draft Bill No T/8044, p 39
[42] Paragraph (2) of Section 45 of the National Assembly Act
[43] Paragraph (3) of Section 46 of the National Assembly Act
[44] Reasoning to Draft Bill No T/8044, p 39
[45] Point (a) of Paragraph (1) of Section 46 of the National Assembly Act
[46] Reasoning to Draft Bill No T/8044, p 40.
[47] Paragraph (1) of Section 46/B of the National Assembly Act
[48] Point (a) of Paragraph (2) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act
[49] Section 46/D of the National Assembly Act
[50] Reasoning to Draft Bill No T/8044, p 41.
[51] Paragraph (3) of Section 48 of the National Assembly Act
[52] Reasoning to Draft Bill No T/8044, p 41.
[53] Paragraph (2) of Section 49 of the National Assembly Act
[54] Paragraph (1) of Section 49 of the National Assembly Act
[55] Section 49/A of the National Assembly Act. §
[56] Reasoning to Draft Bill No T/8044, p 42.
[57] Point (c) of Paragraph (1) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act
[58] Point (b) of Paragraph (2) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act
[59] Section 46/F of the National Assembly Act
[60] Point (d) of Paragraph (1) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act
[61] Point (c) of Paragraph (2) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act
[62] Point (d) of Paragraph (1) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act
[63] Point (d) of Paragraph (2) of Section 47 of the National Assembly Act
[64] Section 46/A of the National Assembly Act
[65] Paragraphs (1)-(2) of Section 51 of the National Assembly Act
[66] Paragraph (7) of Section 51 of the National Assembly Act
[67] Paragraph (1) of Section 51 of the National Assembly Act
[68] Paragraph (2) of Section 51 of the National Assembly Act
[69] Paragraph (4) of Section 51 of the National Assembly Act
[70] Paragraph (5) of Section 51 of the National Assembly Act
[71] Paragraph (6) of Section 51 of the National Assembly Act
[72] Paragraph (9) of Section 51 of the National Assembly Act
[73] Paragraph (1) of Section 51/A of the National Assembly Act
[74] OE-41/763-1/2020. https://www.parlament.hu/documents/10181/38817997/H13986+H%C3%A1zeln%C3%B6ki+d%C3%B6nt%C3%A9s.pdf/e9af46e8-7af0-2afa-9557-510a6ae49f56?t=1606386083855
- 58/59 -
[76] MEB-41/27-4/2020. https://www.parlament.hu/documents/10181/38817997/H13986+Mentelmi+bizotts%C3%A1g+d%C3%B6nt%C3%A9se.pdf/41c5db66-a1d2-ecc3-1256-d4296bcac343?t=1606386109219
[77] OE-41/763-3/2020. https://www.parlament.hu/documents/10181/38817997/H13986+K%C3%A9pvisel%C5%91+k%C3%A9relme+az+Orsz%C3%A1ggy%C5%B1l%C3%A9shez.pdf/b1c6a02a-a9a0-72c7-966e-55d2b05acf78?t=1606386121626
[78] Proposal for Resolution No H/13986
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is doctoral student, Department of Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, University of Pécs organisation assistant, Office of the Hungarian National Assembly.
Visszaugrás
