The regular judicial application of law is under constitutional control. In cases where the interpretation of applicable EU law is not clear for the court adjudicating the specific case, or when the compatibility of applicable Hungarian law with EU law becomes questionable, the regular court may initiate a preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the judicial initiative may refer to the EU's obligation to respect the constitutional identity of its member states. The study examines the applicable procedural opportunities for the referral of the issue of constitutional identity to the preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union. From a procedural law perspective, the rules regarding the suspension of constitutional court proceedings will be analysed, and the proactive role that the ordinary court adjudicating in a specific case may assume will be illuminated, through which the judicial dialogue between the ordinary court and the Court of Justice of the European Union can also evolve into a constitutional dialogue between the Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
A jogszabályok rendes bírósági alkalmazása alkotmányos ellenőrzés alatt áll. Azokban az esetekben, amikor az alkalmazandó uniós jog értelmezése nem egyértelmű az adott ügyet elbíráló bíróság számára, vagy amikor az alkalmazandó magyar jog uniós joggal való összeegyeztethetősége kérdésessé válik, a rendes bíróság előzetes döntéshozatali eljárást kezdeményezhet az Európai Unió Bírósága előtt, és a bírósági kezdeményezés hivatkozhat az EU tagállamok alkotmányos identitásának tiszteletben tartására vonatkozó kötelezettségére. A tanulmány az alkotmányos identitás kérdésének az Európai Unió Bírósága előtti előzetes döntéshozatali eljárás elé terjesztésére vonatkozó alkalmazandó eljárási lehetőségeket vizsgálja. Eljárásjogi szempontból elemzésre kerülnek az alkotmánybírósági eljárás felfüggesztésére vonatkozó szabályok, és rávilágítunk arra a proaktív szerepre, amelyet az adott ügyben ítélkező rendes bíróság vállalhat, amelynek révén a rendes bíróság és az Európai Unió Bírósága közötti bírósági párbeszéd az Alkotmánybíróság és az Európai Unió Bírósága közötti alkotmányos párbeszéddé is fejlődhet.
The exercise of powers by the Constitutional Court (hereinafter: CC), together with the interpretative activity of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: CJEU) through the preliminary ruling procedure, impacts national judicial adjudication in individual cases. As preliminary premise, the author clarifies that the analysis is conducted from a procedural law perspective, focusing on the substantive interrelations between the various judicial fora - namely, the ordinary courts, the CC, and the CJEU - which possess roles relevant to the adjudication of specific cases.
The study approaches the situation through a procedural lens in cases where, in a concrete individual matter, the ordinary court is faced with the question of whether the applicable national legal provision is compatible both with the Constitutional Law and with EU law. Legal disputes may arise based on identical facts and legal grounds, in which one adjudicating judge refers the legal question to the European forum - the CJEU - by way of a request for a preliminary ruling, while another judge initiates proceedings before the national constitutional court. Consequently, a procedural scenario may emerge in which the CJEU proceeds with its assessment concerning compliance with EU law, while the CC simultaneously examines the issue of conformity with the Constitutional Law.
This judicial dialogue surrounding the adjudication of individual legal disputes may evolve into a constitutional dialogue, since the cooperation between the national ordinary court and the CJEU may extend to include the CC as the principal guardian of the constitution. This study examines procedural provisions related to the constitutional dialogue between the CC and the CJEU, with the aim of ensuring the joint effectiveness of EU clauses and the provisions of the Constitutional Law, thereby promoting a genuine discourse marked by proactive engagement.
The obligations arising from the right to a fair trial imply that the adjudicating judge is also bound to take
- 60/61 -
into account the evident correlations with the Constitutional Law, even where the procedural submissions do not explicitly invoke constitutional provisions.[1] Maintaining the legal system in conformity with the Constitutional Law through statutory interpretation is a task assigned to the judiciary, and this presupposes the effective enforcement of the rights and constitutional values enshrined in the Constitutional Law during the application of law.
A fundamental principle governing the adjudicative activity of the judge in an individual case is that the judge is subject only to legal norms that are in conformity with the Constitutional Law. It is likewise a constitutional requirement that the judge render judgment on the basis of legislation that meets constitutional standards.[2] Additionally, courts are constitutionally obliged to interpret the applicable legislation in accordance with the Constitutional Law throughout their adjudicative activity. In adjudicating individual disputes, courts are required to apply an interpretation that conforms to the Constitution; arbitrary judicial interpretation may violate the right to a fair trial.[3]
A misinterpretation of the law contra constitutionem becomes arbitrary where the court explicitly disregards the interpretive rules set forth in Article 28 of the Constitutional Law.[4] In applying legal norms, courts must give effect to the constitutional content of the rights guaranteed therein. Within the boundaries of interpretive discretion afforded by legislation, the court is obliged to identify the fundamental rights dimension of the case before it and to interpret the applicable legal provisions in light of the constitutional content of the fundamental right concerned.[5]
Should a court disregard the fundamental rights relevance of the case and adopt a legal interpretation that conflicts with the constitutional content of the affected right, the resulting judicial decision is unconstitutional.[6] In light of the above, the adjudicating court interprets the Constitutional Law within its own competence and is entitled - and, upon a relevant claim, obliged - to incorporate the provisions of the Constitutional Law into its adjudicative reasoning; that is, where appropriate, it must take constitutional considerations into account in assessing the individual case.[7]
A Jogkódex-előfizetéséhez tartozó felhasználónévvel és jelszóval is be tud jelentkezni.
Az ORAC Kiadó előfizetéses folyóiratainak „valós idejű” (a nyomtatott lapszámok megjelenésével egyidejű) eléréséhez kérjen ajánlatot a Szakcikk Adatbázis Plusz-ra!
Visszaugrás
