"Life is a dangerous profession;
it has already killed many people.
(Frigyes Karinthy)
Two thirds of our planet's surface is covered by water, but only a small proportion of this watery environment is not affected by human activities. The increased amount of water is likely to be harmful, and can cause damage in form of floods or inland waters deriving from local surplus. Consequently, this problem requires the prevention of material damages.
One method of flood control is flood management, implemented by water authorities before hazardous situations, so it has a preventive function. Another method is flood control conducted in case of actual floodings or their imminent risk.
The concept of flood safety changes in time and space, yet it greatly depends on the level of evolution and tolerance of both the individual and the community. In order to organise (quantify, arrange and evaluate) flood safety, the appropriate definition of its policy is the first and most important aspect, which the government must deal with. The pillars of its political manifestation are institutions, legal regulation and decisions concerning state budget.[1]
During human history, water has always been an indispensable natural element, e.g. it is enough to remember the so-called river valley civilizations, such as Mesopotamia within the Tigris-Euphrates river system, the Indus valley civilization or Ancient Egypt along the Nile. The first act-like legal rules were adopted by these civilizations, e.g. by 2500 BC the city-states along the Tiger had already made contracts. Even though, these contracts concerned the establishment and management of irrigation canals. Later on, roman law considered waters as res communes at collective disposal. Anyone could use as much as they wanted - with only one restriction: it shall not be anybody's exclusive property. However, there were no written documents concerning flood control particularly.
Hungary's exposition to water damage is basically determined by its geographic location: it is situated in the deepest part of the Carpathian Basin and it is mainly a plain country, which requires regular flood control against water coming in from the river basins in the Carpathians and the Alps and against the following flood waves concentrating here.[2] The aggregate expansion of the areas jeopardized by floods and inland waters is 48 000 square kilometres, which corresponds to the most important and populated area of the country. One third of the population lives here; 700 settlements including Budapest, Szeged and Győr are situated here, as well as 32% of the railway line, 15% of the roads and 1.8 million hectares of precious agricultural area. The level of Hungary's exposition to water damage is the highest in Europe, similar only to the Netherlands where one fifth of the country is situated under the river and sea level.
During the Middle Ages floods were not as regular natural disasters as nowadays, following the conquest of the Carpathian Basin, Hungarians intervened in water life primarily because of fishing. Nonetheless, from the 11[th] century on, smaller flood control works had been reported.
Scriptures from the 12[th] century concern flood management works in ®itný ostrov (Csallóköz), threatened by the Danube from two sides. Embankments and closure structures were built to protect the island, which guaranteed the safety of both the permanent agricultural villages and the development of animal breeding. The construction of dams was also recorded in a royal decree issued in 1426, which obliged nobles and commoners to
- 390/391 -
participate in building embankments to protect the community of Somorja. Similarly, other documents prove the existence of flood control in the area between Drava and Sava where dams were built, presumably on the ruins left behind from the Roman Empire.[3] Furthermore, it is worthy to mention István Werbőczy's Tripartitum (1504): apart from establishing the oldest principles concerning water management, it also referred to water use and flood control.[4]
The Corpus of Hungarian Law was completed with protective measures against floods and the concerning provisions in the times of Béla IV, when the new-born villages mainly living of agriculture had to protect themselves from floods. In these times, the interested parties had to manage flood control jointly themselves. Counties were obliged to build embankments by the following provisions of the royal decree issued by King Matthias II in 1613: "in order to protect their goods, those counties where the river Tisza usually bursts shall decide unitedly on the construction of embankments." These initiatives prove that flood control did appear centuries ago, yet in the beginning there was no general and comprehensive regulation.
However, the first steps to a general legal background concerning flood control were taken during the Habsburg times. According to Act XVII of 1807 on Waterworks to Be Built at the Cost of Private Landholders, if most landholders interested in preventive flood control works (watercourse management, drainage) decide on working on their own costs and form an association for this purpose, then the landholders in minority who do not want to enter the association shall pay their contribution as well. This burden of costs shall be paid hindsight and only in case of successful work and if the landholders not entering the association earn additional revenue because of it. If necessary, the authorities shall order the sequestration of the additional revenue and the equalisation of the proportional work expenses. Furthermore, the act fostered the establishment of such associations.[5] As a result, with the personal contribution of Palatine Joseph heavily patronizing water management, in 1810 the first water association named Sárvíz Canal Association was founded in the zone of Sárvíz. The association aimed not only to limit water and river damages, but also to realize the most comprehensive usage possible of waters in order to boost the economy.
Section 1 of Act X of 1840 on Waters and Canals declared that "it shall be forbidden to impede or obstacle the natural course of waters to the detriment of others in any way and form". In other words, the article prohibited to use the natural course of waters to the detriment of others and introduced the practice of palatine justice in order to prevent conflict of county competence related to water works involving more authorities.
The first flood control provision of national scope was established in Act IX of 1844 and declared that "in order to protect bridges, dams and embankments against floods, all the interested citizens, landholders and inhabitants, those living nearby shall give the necessary contribution with all their carriages, animals and servants able to work, regardless of their civil condition and without any inclusion."[6]
Inland water control was first implemented by Act XXXIX of 1871, which empowered water associations to do the flood management of the areas stricken by inland waters and to monopolize this task: "The landholders of complex floodplains situated on the banks of rivers and other waters, bordered by dry heights and landholders of islands shall be entitled to establish flood management associations." The act determined the principal body of such associations (which was the general assembly), its structure and functions. The general assembly shall elect a president and at least three broad members from its members, adopt its statute, provide a detailed technical draft which shall be submitted for approval to the competent authority and, through this authority, to the Ministry of Transport. These bodies shall supervise the associations (after 1877 this task was up to the River Engineering and the State Construction Offices.) The association's board shall provide the development of floodplain, the census and the classification of the affected lands according to area size, and the related budget. In order to fulfil its duties, the association may also be entitled to get loans.[7] In comparison with the former regulation, the associations' freedom of action was only limited by the provision which declared that by managing flood control no association "shall cause any damage to the landholders owning lands on the opposite site, or on the upper or the under end not avertable by similar works."
Act XL of 1871 on Dam Police provided legal protection for dams constructed by the water associations and punished with appropriate sanctions those who - either by negligence or with intention - jeopardized the integrity and the defence capacity of embankments and the pertinent drainage ditches, locks, tree planting and benches. The act stated that the maintenance and protection of dam
- 391/392 -
constructions shall be guaranteed firstly by flood management or water regulation associations, secondly by the authority with territorial competence, and finally by the state.
Even though the regulation of the Tisza was completed according to Pál Vásárhelyi's plans, great disaster occurred in 1879, caused by the coincidence of the spring floods of the rivers Danube and Tisza. The huge inundation nearly destroyed the city of Szeged formerly considered to be safe. Consequently, the government gave priority to river regulation and both the act on government responsibility regarding flood management in the Tisza Valley and the so-called "Tisza Act", i.e. Act XIV of 1884 on the Regulation of the Tisza and Its Tributaries were adopted. In harmony with the Tisza Act, water associations shall realize flood management and inland water diverting. The act provided an important guarantee to the areas situated on heights which may not be developed by any association: based on these areas, separate associations shall be formed, but their burden of the parties concerned shall not outweigh the increase in value realised by flood management.[8]
The general "Water Act" was born in 1885 and was a role model for Europe. It regulated water ownership questions, associational interventions and responsibilities with such diligence that it remained in force until 1962. It preceded foreign legislation in several provisions or applied it amending and adopting to the Hungarian law system. In harmony with a society built on private property, the act fully respected the assertion and protection of private interests.[9] On one hand, it repeated those provisions of the Tisza Act and the Water Association Act which concerned associations and flood management. On the other hand, it established new rules in subsections on associations founded for water management and, separately, for those founded for water usage. For instance, it empowered the Minister of Transport and Public Works to impose ex officio the burden of costs related to the maintenance of water installations established for public interests on the members of such associations.[10]
Ten years later, the act on the regulation of the Middle-Danube was also adopted, which foresaw the execution of flood control works necessary according to economic, navigational and steady flood-runoff aspects until the end of 1907.
The following large-scale investment project was established by Act XXXVIII of 1914, which fixed the rules both on the necessary preventive works which had formerly been out of state regulation and on the aids to be provided during such works. However, its execution was impeded by the outbreak of the First World War.
In consequence of the Treaty of Trianon, there was a fundamental change in the geographical, organisational and economic conditions of water management and construction works in the post-war country. As a result, also water associations faced a substantial transformation.
The closure of the Treaty ordered the establishment of the permanent technical Hydraulic System Commission and charged it with the tasks of initiating agreements to unify the provisions concerning water management and of studying navigation questions. This Chapter's articles presupposed the mutual cooperation of the countries of the Danube River Basin, which, though, was nearly impossible to accomplish their difficult international relationships after the war. Coping with the difficulties of water damage management had been problematic even in the association system of Historic Hungary, but in the new situation, this was - to a high degree - subject to the newborn states' caprices and whether they were serious or negligent about the topic. This was especially true for the Great Hungarian Plain.[11] The Hungarian-Austrian Convention on transboundary waters was signed in 1923, followed by the Hungarian-Rumanian Convention (achieved through French mediation), by the Czechoslovak-Hungarian and, finally, by the Hungarian-Yugoslavian Conventions. The establishment of water associations was also boosted by Acts XL and XLI of 1923.
In 1940, people faced country-wide floods and it came clear that the state had not carried out river regulation, that was out of the associations' competence with as much intensity as it should have done. Confirming that water associations had been paralysed, the Ministry of Agriculture issued a decree on the temporal suspension of their local government (MA Decree no. 41150/1945). In a short time, the associations were liquidated. Ordering the nationalisation of water issues, Government Decree no. 6060/1948 (VI. 2.) put an end to the 140-years-long history of the associations.[12] According to the Decree, state responsibility covered, inter alia, flood control, the execution of regulatory, bank protection and other necessary works in order to provide flood and inland water control and to prevent damages of those rivers, streams
- 392/393 -
and other water courses which had not formerly been managed by the state. These tasks were realised by the Minister of Agriculture through the National Water Management Office.
Following the Second World War, property relations suffered a substantial change which affected also water regulation. Act IV of 1964 on Water Policy, the second water constitution after Act XXIII of 1885, furtherly strengthened state property and responsibility, its duty of unlimited care and its power of direct intervention and regulation.[13] Chapter IV ordered the protection of embankments establishing that "the area between the coastline and the protective embankment shall exclusively be used in respect of flood control interests and in harmony with law". It furtherly determined the activities prohibited within the areas on the embankment and in its neighbourhood.[14]
Nowadays, flood control is regulated by Decree no. 10/1997. (VII. 17.) of the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Water Management, Act CXXVIII of 2011 on Disaster Management and Amending Certain Related Acts. Furthermore, also the Fundamental Law concerns disaster protection: it prevalently considers it as a civil obligation and establishes that "the Hungarian Defence Forces shall take part in the prevention of disasters, and the relief and elimination of their consequences."[15]
According to the concerning Act, disaster protection is a national responsibility, and its uniform direction is a state responsibility. The act makes a distinction between 'threat of disaster' and 'hazardous situation.'
'Threat of disaster' is a process or state which threatens human health, environment, the safety of life and property when a disaster is likely to occur.
The origins of 'hazardous situation' may be natural disasters or threats, e.g. during flood control if the water is expected to approach the highest level ever measured, while further great floods are likely to occur or the embankment is expected to break. In this case, motorway, railway, waterway and airway traffic may be restricted or temporarily prohibited in some parts or in the whole country. Citizens' stay in streets or other public places may fall under restriction, the fact and the time of which shall be announced via radio, television, press announcement, and by means considered customary in the area. In case of hazardous situation, police may prohibit events or rallies in public places which violate security interests, and the population may be displaced from a determined area of the country for the necessary time period and, parallelly, its new temporary residence may be fixed. The mayor shall organize the displacement of the population with the contribution of the professional disaster management organization.
According to the Government Decree, in time of prevention who is obliged to disaster protection shall prepare a flood control plan based on protection stages with a content established in the referring Act.
With regard to the concept of threat or hazardous situation, both the referring legal literature and regulation offer a wide range of approaches. In aggregate terms, it can be said that the intrinsic feature of threat is the probability of having a damaging impact. Its components are emphasized differently by the various branches of law, e.g. the harmfulness to society is highlighted by criminal law, the liability for highly dangerous activity by civil law, and hazardous working conditions by labour law.
Threat is not homogeneously defined by administrative law, yet its forms related to the different administrative branches are determined by the concerning sectoral legislation. As a result, for instance, the Act CXXVIII of 2011 on Disaster Management and Amending Certain Related Acts gives the following definition to 'threat of disaster': process or state which threatens human health, environment, the safety of life and property when a disaster is likely to occur. [Paragraph 9 of Section 3]
Apart from natural origins, a hazardous situation is prevalently triggered by human activities. In administrative law, threat is always connected to people, as they are the ones primarily affected by it.[16] According to Ernst Forsthoff, public administration must guarantee public order and security, civil equality and welfare services. Thus, from the aspect of organisation science, public administration - as the main organisation of state responsibility[17] - must prevent threats and hazardous situations. In accordance with him, the administrative tasks deriving from the internal protective function of the state are, on one hand, law enforcement and, on the other hand, the protection of state borders, public security and civil life.
Administrative law and public administration aim to prevent threat by offsetting its source with
- 393/394 -
different legal (regulatory) means or by drawing the attention of the "target points" (people) to exercise high caution when facing the risk of threat.[18] The function of social protection can also be discovered in Act CXL of 2004 on the General Rules of Administrative Proceedings and Services (hereinafter: APS Act), as the regulatory measures classified among regulatory actions generally aim to prevent or eliminate a threat and prescribe an obligation which must be immediately discharged by its addressee. This means significant intervention in the social, economic and legal relationships of people affected by these measures, which, for instance, are highly important for the assertion of public interest in disaster protection. For this reason, the provision of the appropriate procedural guarantees is a constitutional requirement.
In harmony with the protective measure applicable in civil procedure, the administrative measure is also limited by a number of constitutional requirements. These demand a procedure which provides guarantees as conditions of the implementation and during which procedure the obligor gains knowledge of the obligation that he/she has been charged with and is protected by the possibility of legal remedy.[19]
As referred to above, a hazardous situation in public administration involves people. In administrative proceedings, these "people" are the clients, i.e. any natural or legal person and any association lacking the legal status of a legal person whose rights or lawful interests are affected by a case, who is subjected to regulatory inspection, or who is the subject of any data contained in official records and registers.[20] However, the different hazardous situations may not only involve the client but may also impede the authority from working and making decisions. In particular, both the legal order and the requirement of administrative legality are infringed by a threat, thus, the principles required in administrative proceedings cannot be implemented either.
In the following, I will examine how the preventive function of public administration is guaranteed by the APS Act, currently in force, and what new solutions are provided by Act CL of 2016 on the General Administrative Proceedings (hereinafter: GAP Act) which is going to enter into force on 1[st] January 2018.
In the APS Act, currently in force, the security function of public administration is divided among three legal institutions: provisional protective measure, protective measure and provisional measure. These regulatory measures cannot be considered independent administrative actions, they are simple actions of the authority which trigger immediate legal effect.
The provisional protective measure shall be ordered if the enforcement of a claim to which the proceedings pertain appears to be in jeopardy. In such case, the authority shall have powers to obtain security for money claims or to sequestrate specific things within five days from the time occurrence of the underlying circumstances, even before adopting a decision on the merits of the case. In other words, the provisional protective measure is an anticipatory measure which limits the right to property. It shall be withdrawn by the authority when the grounds therefor no longer exist; if it has been ordered to ensure a specific amount, and this amount has been deposited with the authority; or upon the operative date of the resolution or the ruling for the termination of proceedings. [Section 29/A]
This legal institution has been introduced to provide a means for the authority to guarantee the enforcement of a claim and to prevent the threat of failure if the client intends to procrastinate or impede the proceedings and so threatens the enforcement of such claim. The provisional protective measure affects also the administrative time limit, as if it has been ordered, the case on hand shall be concluded in priority proceedings. [Subsection (2) of Section 33] An independent appeal may be lodged against the ruling, but it shall have no suspensory effect. [Paragraph a) Subsection (3) of Section 98; Subsection (3) of Section 101] Otherwise, this legal institution would lose exactly its purpose.
The GAP Act classifies the provisional protective measure among protective measures: firstly, it defines protective measure in compliance with the current regulation in force, i.e. if the enforcement of a claim to which the proceedings pertain appears to be in jeopardy, the authority shall order protective measure to obtain security for money claims or to sequestrate specific things within five days from the time occurrence of the underlying circumstances, before the deadline set for the performance of an obligation. [Subsection (1) of Sec-
- 394/395 -
tion 107] If a provisional protective measure has been implemented, the Act establishes a deadline of three days.
In the future, the application of this measure will not depend from the independent discretion of the authority: it shall be ordered only if there are reasonable grounds that the enforcement of a claim ordered by a decision on the merits of the case appears to be in jeopardy. Compared with the current legislation, this means a conceptional amendment.
Protective measures are established in Section 143 of the APS Act. The main difference between them and the provisional protective measures is connected to the time of implementation: while provisional protective measures may also be applied before adopting a decision on the merits of the case, protective measures shall be applied exclusively from the adoption of such decision to the time limit set to the enforcement of a claim. The circumstances of withdrawal are the same, yet protective measures shall be withdrawn also if they have been ordered to ensure a specific act, and the obligor is able to verify beyond reasonable doubt of having taken all measures within reason for voluntary performance, and the protective measure constitutes the only hindrance remaining. Just like in case of provisional protective measures, the ruling for the implementation of protective measures may be appealed independently.
In contrast, the authority - irrespective of its jurisdiction and powers and competencies -shall ex officio take provisional measures, without which any delay is likely to result in insurmountable damage, irremediable violation of rights relating to personality or unavoidable danger. The authority shall deliver its ruling concerning the above-specified provisional measures to the authority with jurisdiction and powers. When conducting an inquiry with respect to provisional measures the protection of rights acquired and exercised in good faith shall not apply. [Subsections (3)-(5) of Section 22] Since prevention guarantees the assertion of public interest more, the "insurmountable damage", in this case, prevails over the protection of rights acquired.
One of the most important principles of administrative proceedings is officiality. One of its most remarkable manifestations is the following provision: the competent authority shall be required to launch proceedings ex officio within its sphere of competence in the cases established by the Act. These cases are: a) it is so prescribed by legal regulation; b) so instructed by its supervisory organ, or ordered by the court; c) it gains knowledge of a life-threatening or potentially devastating situation. [Subsection (2) of Section 29] This provision has not been amended, but completed by the GAP Act: the authority shall launch proceedings if it gains knowledge of the underlying circumstances during a regulatory inspection. This addition shall be emphasized because even the infringement noticed during a regulatory inspection may trigger a hazardous situation: once it is neglected, it infringes public interest through violating legal order. Since the protection of public interest requires quick and efficient prevention, the substitution of general rules with exceptional ones is the peculiarity of life-threatening or potentially devastating situations.
Besides, the APS Act gives the definition of 'life-threatening or potentially devastating situation'. Any extraordinary situation, condition or event posing any imminent and direct threat to the life of one or more persons, or for inflicting serious injury or damage to their health, furthermore, posing substantial threat for causing irreversible damage to the natural or built environment and to property, and where executive and regulatory measures are required for its prevention or for protection against subsequent harmful effects. [Paragraph f) of Section 172] Such definition is not given by the GAP Act, which, moreover, does not contain any interpretative provisions. Presumably, the legislator has aimed to simplify the regulation by avoiding the explanation of concepts already clarified in legal terminology. As the APS Act refers to the Civil Code regarding the terms 'minor, person of legal incapacity and person of legal capacity', and to the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the terms 'document, official document, authentic instrument, private document', this argument seems quite acceptable.
The 'state of danger' established by Article 53 of the Fundamental Law - especially by referring to Sections 44-51 of the Disaster Management Act -covers the concept of 'life-threatening or potentially devastating situation' which requires the application of administrative protective measures, as a natural disaster or an industrial accident generally endangers life, health and environment.
As a means for the prevention of hazardous situations, officiality appears in the following provision of the APS Act: In the absence of a successor the competent authority shall be liable to take the measures necessary to eliminate an unlawful situation or a situation that is harmful to or endangers public interests. [Subsection (5) of Section 16] In
- 395/396 -
contrast, there is a remarkable simplification in the GAP Act: from 1[st] January on, the authority will not be empowered to take such measures.
According to the general rules,[21] the authority's decisions shall be operative after they have been declared legally binding, if the required result was not achieved within the time limit specified for performance.
However, an exception from this rule is established by Paragraph c) of Subsection (1) of Section 126. The authority may declare its decision enforceable notwithstanding any appeal or irrespective of a petition submitted for having the enforcement procedure suspended, in order to prevent a life-threatening or potentially devastating situation. In contrast, Section 84 of the GAP Act declares that "the authority shall declare its decision enforceable if it is necessary to prevent or impede a life-threatening or potentially devastating situation or the serious violation of personal rights, or to offset its harmful consequences..." The GAP Act does not contain the clause "notwithstanding any appeal" because once it enters into effect, appeals may be lodged only if they are expressively permitted by the Act. As a result, in contrast to the actual legal remedy system, appeal will not be considered a general legal remedy.
An on-site inspection shall be conducted during certain hours (on regular work days between 8:00 and 20:00 hours). Nonetheless, the APS Act establishes an exception: In the case of a life-threatening or potentially devastating situation, furthermore, for reasons of public security and public order, or for any other important reasons specified by law the inspection may be carried out without delay. [Subsections (1)-(2) of Section 57/A] If an on-site inspection is deemed necessary in a life-threatening or potentially devastating situation requiring prompt attention, or if it is allowed by law for other reasons of importance, the authority shall carry out the inspection by opening a locked area, building or room by force, against the will of the persons present. Conducting such inspection shall be subject to the prior consent of the competent public prosecutor, and shall be carried out with police assistance in the presence of an official witness. If obtaining the prior consent of the public prosecutor is likely to result in undue delay, the inspection may be carried out without the prior consent of the public prosecutor, in which case the inspection report - containing the reason for taking prompt action and the action in detail - shall be sent to the public prosecutor within five days.
According to the GAP Act, if deemed necessary for the successful and safe conduct of the inspection - either if someone impedes the inspection or in other justified cases - the authority may ask for police assistance. In this case, the inspection shall be subject to the prior consent of the competent public prosecutor, and shall be carried out with police assistance and - if possible - in the presence of an official witness.
Nowadays, one of the greatest challenge faced by Hungarian disaster management is the organization of flood protection, which requires long-term and complicated cooperation. According to the year-to-year variability of precipitation and temperature of the last 100 years in Hungary, 17 years are considered favourable, 32 wet, 23 dry, and 28 severely dry. Consequently, in this cooperation, the local level of protection should be primarily strengthened, training and equipping the NGOs and thus enhancing the self-defence of local governments and administrative areas should be urged.[22]
As the legal values under threat are furtherly clarified by the legislator, the hazardous situations regulated by the APS Act are concretized in the specific procedural provisions, which contain several forms of threat frequently preventable with specific administrative means.[23] For instance, Act CXXVIII of 2011 on Disaster Management and Amending Certain Related Acts declares that in case of a hazardous situation, the population may be displaced from a determined area of the country for the necessary time period and, parallelly, its new temporary residence may be fixed. The mayor shall organize the displacement of the population with the contribution of the professional disaster management organization. [Subsection (4) of Section 49] One of the greatest challenge faced by Hungarian disaster management is the organization of flood protection, which requires long-term and complicated cooperation. In this cooperation, the local level of protection should be primarily strengthened, training and equipping the NGOs and thus enhancing the self-defence of local governments and administrative areas should be urged.[24] Nowadays, the following quote is more true than ever: "Local governments must strengthen their political power as soon as possible and must take the first steps in the direction of a more proportional and decentralised separation of powers."[25]
- 396/397 -
Similar preventive provisions are established by Act LXXVIII of 1997 on the Formation and Protection of the Built Environment. According to Paragraph b) of Subsection (1) of Section 20, lot formation or building prohibition may be issued for the implementation of urban planning chores, for the prevention of the endangerment to nature and environment, and for the enforcement of the Acts on Nature and Environment Conservation.
The system of administrative penalties has been modified by Act II of 2012 on Offences, the Procedure in Relation to Offences and the Offence Record System. This modification affected the legal classification of nearly a hundred criminal acts which had been formerly punished also as petty offences. Yet, their harmfulness to society has not ceased, so they have become offences punishable with administrative penalties established by a local self-government decree. Parallelly, the general rules of administrative penalty system have been integrated to the APS Act, providing the authorities with means similar to those applicable in the petty offence procedure, such as confiscation.[26] With regard to the current topic, the rule concerning this sanction has relevance: it declares that where permitted by an act, the authority shall confiscate any article, the possession of which is illegal or constitutes an endangerment to public safety. [Paragraph b) of Subsection (1) of Section 94/B] Nevertheless, the GAP Act does not contain such provisions about confiscation, because - as it is expressed in its interpretation - these are part of substantial law, dogmatically incompatible with a procedural act. The articles, the possession of which is illegal are listed in the Government Decree no. 175/2003. (X. 28.) on Articles Particularly Dangerous to the Public Safety.
As declared in the Magyary Zoltán Public Administration Development Programme, "A state may be regarded as good if it serves the needs of individuals, communities and businesses in the interest and within the boundaries of the common good, in the best possible way."[27] In order to realize this manifesto, quickness and professionality, apart from other aspects, must permeate the treatment of hazardous situations. In my point of view, the legal institutions established by both the APS and the GAP Acts meet these requirements. ■
NOTES
* Tanulmányom az Igazságügyi Minisztérium jogászképzés színvonalának emelését célzó programjai keretében valósult meg. This study was carried out in the legal eduaction's quality development programme of Ministry of Justice.
[1] Flood control: http://www.ovf.hu/hu/arvizvedelem-1 [4 Oct 2015]
[2] Felkai Beáta Olga: Az árvízvédelem ökonómiai kérdései. PhD értekezés [Economic Questions of Flood Control - PhD Thesis]. Szent István University. Management and Business Administration PhD School. Gödöllő 2006. p. 8.
[3] Fejér László: Árvizek és belvizek szorításában. [In the Grip of Floods and Inland Waters] www.dunamuzeum.hu/public/laci/Arvizbelviz.doc [2 Oct 2015] p. 1.
[4] Werbőczy: Tripartitum: Section 3 of Chapter 87. "Forests, fields and lands shall be the exclusive property of whom has formerly owned or pacifically possessed it. This principle includes that some people are entitled to build dams and embankments on others' lands to protect their own lands, fields and forests from floods and water damages. Yet, this shall not trigger the expropriation of such lands of others' property."
[5] "...if the majority of the landholders collectively interested decide on establishing the necessary water structures on their own costs to prevent the harmful inundation of rivers.. "
[6] Section 20 of Act IX of 1844 on the Regulation of Public Works
[7] Sections 1, 3, 10, 15 and 22 of Act XXXIX of 1871 on "Water Regulation" Associations
[8] Sections 1 and 3 of Act XIV of 1884 on the Regulation of the Tisza and Its Tributaries, the Flood Management of these River Valleys, and the Organization and Management of Water Regulation and Flood Management Associations
[9] Felkai (n 2) p. 11.
[10] Section 113 of Act XXIII of 1885 on Water Law
[11] Fejér (n 3) p. 38.
[12] Fejér (n 3) p. 54.
[13] Dávidovits Zsuzsanna: A vízvédelem jogi szabályozási rendszere és az ivóvízminősítés szabályozása. [Legal Background of Water Protection and Drinking Water Qualification]. In: Hadmérnök. [Military Engineer] no. 4/VI. p. p. 73.
[14] Paragraph (1) of Section 24 and Section 26 of Act IV of 1964 on Water Policy
[15] Cf. Paragraphs (5)-(6) of Article XXXI and Paragraph (3) of Article 45 of the Fundamental Law
[16] Fábián Adrián: Gondolatok a "közigazgatási jogi" veszélyről. Tanulmányok a "Határellenőrzés a veszélyhelyzetek tükrében" c. tudományos konferenciáról. [Thoughts on "Administrative Threat." In: Studies of the Conference "Border Control in the Light of Hazardous Situations"] Pécsi Határőr Tudományos Közlemények VI. (Scientifical Publications on Border Control from Pécs VI.) Pécs 2006. p. 51.
[17] For more details, see also: Magyary Zoltán: Magyar Közigazgatás [Hungarian Public Administration] and Berényi Sándor: Államigazgatási jog [Administrative Law]
[18] Fábián (n 16) 52.
[19] Cf. 46/1991 /IX.10. / ABH Constitutional Court Decision, 52/1991 /X.22. / ABH Constitutional Court Decision
[20] Subsection (1) of Section 15 of Act CXL of 2004 on the General Rules of Administrative Proceedings and Services
[21] Section 73/A of the APS Act
[22] Horváth Zoltán: A katasztrófavédelem, azon belül az árvízi védekezés logisztikai támogatásának kérdései a jogszabályok tükrében [Disaster Management, Especially the Logistic Questions of Flood Protection in the Light of Legislation] [http://193.224.76.4/download/konyvtar/digitgy/publikacio/horvath_zoltan.pdf [1 Sept 2015] 16-17.
[23] Fábián (n 16) 57.
[24] Horváth (n 22)
- 397/398 -
[25] See: Csefkó Ferenc - Pálné Kovács Ilona: Az önkormányzatok érdekszövetségeiről [About Blocs of Local Governments]. In: Magyar Közigazgatás [Hungarian Public Administration]. no. I/1991. 91.
[26] Cf. detailed interpretation of the bill about the GAP Act 93.
[27] Magyary Zoltán Public Administration Development Programme: http://magyaryprogram.kormany.hu/admin/download/8/34/40000/Magyary-Kozigazgatas-fejlesztesi-Program.pdf [17 Oct 2016] 6.
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is assistant lecturer, University of Pécs, Faculty of Law, Administrative Law Department.
Visszaugrás
