dr. Mátyás Módos[1]: The Importance of the Normative Power of Legislative Drafting Rules - The Hungarian Example (JURA, 2025/3., 36-59. o.)

I. Introduction

The primary objective of this study is to present Hungary's law-making rules, particularly those governing legislative drafting. The study aims to highlight Hungary's distinctive approach: establishing these rules through binding legal instruments, in contrast to the recommendation-type (non-binding) guidelines typical in other parts of the world. The research compares practices across countries, contrasting the soft law solutions typical in Western and common law systems with the mandatory approaches found in several Central and Eastern European countries, including Hungary. We explore not only the theoretical but as importantly the practical advantages of this methodological support for legislative preparation compared to soft law solutions.

The significance of our examination lies in the fact that the rules of lawmaking, legislative drafting and editing, as well as their quality, applicability, and possible enforceability, are of decisive importance for the quality of law-making and legislation itself.[1] Legislative quality depends not only on substance but also on clarity, structure, and drafting technique.[2] Clear, well-crafted law-making is essential for the correct application (and enforceability) of legislation. Well-formulated, unambiguous laws have a greater chance of successful implementation, while vague, complicated wording significantly reduces compliance and implementation effectiveness.[3] High-quality law-making promotes cost-justified, consistent, and efficient policy implementation. It contributes to effective regulatory systems that serve the public interest and support well-functioning societies and markets.[4] Quality law-making is therefore a precondition for legal certainty, the predictability of the legal system and the effectiveness of law enforcement -ultimately for the rule of law and the effective functioning of democratic institutions.[5]

This study does not analyze Hungarian law-making practice or empirically examine how these rules are applied; these aspects may be the subject of a separate research. However, the study presents the primary advantage of the "hard law" solution: it creates a solid foundation for the algorithmization of legislative preparation. Examples of this already exist in Hungary, and the study also briefly refers to these. The paper therefore focuses on presenting Hungarian law-making norms at the system level, highlighting their theo-

- 36/37 -

retical and potential technological relevance.

II. General Rules and Principles of Law-making in Hungary

Following the regime change, Hungary's Constitutional Court developed constitutional principles and requirements for law-making from the rule of law clause of the Constitution (modified according to democratic principles in 1989-90). The Constitutional Court established the rule of law as an independent constitutional legal norm, whose violation alone constitutes grounds for declaring legislation unconstitutional.[6]

From the beginning, the Constitutional Court identified legal certainty as the defining content and later as the most essential element of the rule of law - itself a fundamental constitutional principle.[7] Through a series of decisions, the Court defined the individual components of legal certainty, which therefore constitute the basic constitutional principles of law-making.

The Constitutional Court established that valid legislation can only be created by observing formalized procedural rules. If the National Assembly violates legislative procedure rules, this results in formal unconstitutionality (public law invalidity), which - given the Constitutional Court's annulment power - carries constitutional legal sanctions.[8]

The Court also established that "the principle of legal certainty requires that law-making, and as part of this, the amendment and entry into force of legislation, should take place in a reasonable order, and that amendments should be clearly traceable and transparent for both legal subjects and law enforcement bodies." It further held that "law-making practice which, when creating legislation, does not provide for the express repeal or amendment of provisions contrary to the new rule, does not satisfy the requirement of legal certainty" (requirement of specific amendment and repeal).[9]

The Hungarian Constitutional Court also addressed the question of accessibility of legislation: "one important component of the rule of law is legal certainty, which, among other things, requires that the rights and obligations of citizens be regulated by legislation promulgated in the manner prescribed by law and accessible to anyone."[10]

From the principle of legal certainty, the Constitutional Court further derived the prohibition of (disadvantageous) retroactive law-making[11], the protection of acquired rights[12], and the requirement of adequate preparation time ("there must be a real possibility for legal subjects to adapt their behavior to the prescriptions of the law").[13]

Individual Constitutional Court decisions also addressed the necessity of maintaining the hierarchy of legal sources and related questions about legislative authorizations[14]. The Court also ruled that no legal source other than those listed in the Constitution can exist, that legislative power derives from the Constitution, and that any

- 37/38 -

transfer of this power must also be constitutionally regulated.[15]

Finally, the Constitutional Court derived the most important and mul-tifaceted principle from legal certainty requirements: the requirement of normative clarity. The rule of law and legal certainty require effective functioning of public authorities, "which is inconceivable without rational order of legislative drafting and preparation," "it is a constitutional requirement for law-making." The Court established that "drafting and amending legislation (repeal, additions, etc.) must be reasonable and transparent" as a constitutional requirement.[16] The Court also established that "law-making may only take place in accordance with the constitutional principle of legal certainty. The principle of legal certainty requires that law-making, and as part of this, the amendment and entry into force of legislation, should take place in a reasonable order, and that amendments should be clearly traceable and transparent for both legal subjects and law enforcement bodies."[17] The requirement of normative clarity -which forms the basis for rules governing legislative drafting and formulation - includes the following sub-elements: comprehensibility, unambiguity, consistency, predictability, normativity, appropriate abstraction levels, correct Hungarian language use, and simplicity or streamlined drafting (economical use of structural units and wording during norm creation).[18]

The new Fundamental Law, effective since 2012, established the rule of law as both a basic constitutional principle and an organizing principle governing the entire Fundamental Law, consistent with the former Constitution and related interpretation of the Constitutional Court[19]. Besides, it also determined (at the fundamental law level, following constitutional court practice) law-makers, legislative scope and hierarchy, the obligation to promulgate legislation, and that generally binding rules of conduct may only be created through legislation by a body with legislative power, following formalized legislative procedure.[20]

In 2010 - alongside constitutional revision - the National Assembly re-enacted the Act on Law-making (Act CXXX of 2010, hereinafter: the Act on Law-making), after the Constitutional Court annulled the previous, outdated law in 2009 that had remained in force since before the regime change. The Act on Law-making, incorporating the constitutional court practice presented above, made constitutional law-making principles explicit normative requirements, as follows.

Chapter II of the Act on Law-making, titled "Fundamental Requirements for Law-making," first regulates normative clarity and prohibits retroactive effect: "Laws shall have a regulatory content that ensures unequivocal interpretation by their addressees." "Laws may not establish obligations, make obligations more onerous, withdraw or restrict rights, or declare any conduct to be illegal with respect to the period prior to their entry into force."[21]

For legal system transparency and coherence, the Act on Law-making requires that "identical or similar living conditions shall be regulated in an identical or similar way and, if possible, within the same law at each regulatory level," and

- 38/39 -

the regulation "may not have unjustified parallelisms or multiple levels." It also establishes that higher-level legislation provisions may not be repeated in lower-level legislation.[22]

The Act on Law-making expressly addresses the requirement of specific amendment and repeal falling within the scope of legal certainty: "to amend a provision of law in force, the organ or person with legislative power shall adopt a law with a provision that specifically identifies the provision it intends to amend and provides for its amendment." It also exclusively determines when laws or provisions become ineffective: beyond ex lege automatic deregulation of already implemented legislation or provisions, typically "once repealed by a provision of law that specifically identifies the law or provision to be repealed and provides for its repeal" or "once amended by a provision of law that specifically identifies the provision to be amended and provides for its replacement."[23]

The Act on Law-making also prescribes ensuring adequate preparation time and the promulgation method determined as a fundamental law requirement (at least for central legislation): "the date of entry into force of laws shall be determined in a way that allows sufficient time to prepare for their application" and "laws other than local government decrees shall be promulgated in the Magyar Közlöny" (Hungarian Official Gazette).[24]

The Act on Law-making also establishes the requirement of normativity: "when making laws, it shall be ensured that laws do not unjustifiably contain provisions that lack normative content."[25]

From the triad of validity - force (scope) - applicability, the Act on Law-making primarily addresses force of legislation (and cases of loss of force. It provides main rules for territorial and personal scope (requiring only deviations to be specified in individual legislation) and for temporal scope, offering possible modalities for determining entry into force.[26] Validity requirements come from the Fundamental Law as described above, while the Constitutional Court may establish "invalidity under public law". The Act on Law-making addresses application questions in connection with regulatory transition, and the Constitutional Court may likewise be authorized to rule on application of legislation - in individual cases or generally.[27]

Among general drafting rules, the Act on Law-making also regulates abstraction levels: "If a matter is to be regulated by Act, the fundamental legal institutions and the essential guarantees related to achieving the regulatory objective shall be set out in an Act." "The professional content and the scope of a law, and the extent of abstraction of a provision of law shall be established reasonably, in line with the nature of the sphere of life subject to the regulation, and in accordance with the provisions of this Act."[28]

The Act on Law-making comprehensively summarizes law-making requirements: "When making laws, it shall be ensured that laws comply with the requirements of form and content arising from the Fundamental Law, fit into the unity of the legal system, comply with obligations arising from international law and the law of the European Union, and comply

- 39/40 -

with the professional requirements of lawmaking."[29] The latter - the professional requirements of law-making - include legislative drafting and editing rules.

III. The Professional Requirements of Lawmaking - Rules of Legislative Drafting in Hungary

Hungary's first step in renewing law-making rules was establishing normative legislative drafting requirements in 2009.[30] Previously, no binding legal source provided coherent guidance for correct, systematic, and structured creation of legislation that would serve normative clarity and drafting uniformity of drafting. The Decree 61/2009. (XII. 14.) of the Minister of Justice on legislative drafting (hereinafter: Legislative Drafting Decree) aimed to standardize legislative drafting practices by establishing a transparent and coherent system for technical legislative preparation. According to objectives declared in the accompanying guidelines, the aim was to help the addressees of legislation to interpret legislation correctly, reveal the legislator's will, and make current law accessible by improving legal system coherence.[31]

The guide prepared for the Legislative Drafting Decree, which can also be interpreted as justification, expressly referred in its introduction to the fact that the decree was prepared using constitutional concepts determined in constitutional court jurisprudence. It built on experience accumulated in law-making practice since the regime change, as well as on dogmatic concepts and results clarified in legal science and legal dogmatics dealing with legislative drafting in preceding de-cades.[32]

The guide identified the Legislative Drafting Decree's subject matter as incorporating correct, "rational" drafting methods and established "best practices" into legislation. Its main objective was facilitating preparation of legislation complying with constitutional formal requirements. However, the guide also noted that legislation prepared in compliance with the Legislative Drafting Decree does not necessarily result in constitutionally conforming legislation.[33] This is partly dogmatic (constitutional requirements - whether formal or substantive - derive directly from the constitution and must therefore be enforced independently) and partly because the Legislative Drafting Decree cannot address all substantive constitutional aspects. The guide also addresses the reverse situation, emphasizing that legislation complying with constitutional requirements both formally and substantively does not necessarily comply with the requirements of the Legislative Drafting Decree.[34] The Constitutional Court also established that legal regulation technique is not itself a constitutional question, that minor textual inconsistencies recognized during application can be remedied by interpretation (necessary during law enforcement), and that merely violating preparation-directed obligations during law preparation does not necessarily lead to direct constitutional

- 40/41 -

violation but will presumably damage the effectiveness of the law.[35] In a specific case affecting a law adopted after the issuance of the Legislative Drafting Decree, the Constitutional Court found that "irregular lawmaking (legislative drafting) solutions that do not fully enforce the professional requirements of law-making in a given case do not necessarily result in a situation that violates the principle of legal certainty and therefore being contrary to the Fundamental Law."[36]

This means that every single element of the Legislative Drafting Decree serves the purpose of creating legislation that complies with legal certainty and is unambiguously interpretable, but violation of one of its elements does not necessarily harm legal certainty. Indeed, legislation satisfying legal certainty requirements could even be adopted with different methodological-technical solutions than those in the Legislative Drafting Decree (at least in principle).

Its significance nevertheless lies in the fact that it consistently unifies the system of rules for the entire legal system, increasing predictability and foreseeability of legislation. Due to its normative binding force, it must be followed even if violating a given point would not cause constitutional violation.

The scope of the Legislative Drafting Decree does not extend to legislation that may be created during a special legal order, to the Fundamental Law and its amendments (except the preamble), or to preparing international treaty texts (for preparing draft legislation promulgating the international treaty itself, the Legislative Drafting Decree must only be applied with deviations specified in the Act on international treaties).[37]

As the next chapter will show, Hungary's solution of providing legislative drafting rules through binding legislation is not among established solutions in international comparison. But what does this legislative obligation mean? Whom and what does it bind? Does it threaten parliamentary or local government representatives who make drafting errors with prison? Will the Government, or possibly the signing Prime Minister, be held responsible because a government decree contains a drafting error? Will an decree of the National Bank created in violation of the Legislative Drafting Decree be invalid? Clearly, ministerial decree-level legislation cannot constitutionally have such (binding) force.[38] But then what exactly does this decree of the Minister of Justice relate to?

The Legislative Drafting Decree's material scope extends to a specific phase of legislative preparation: drafting and editing draft legislation. Therefore, the Legislative Drafting Decree detaches itself from the legislative hierarchy problem - from the fact that it could not regulate rules binding higher-level legislators - yet it can uniformly determine rules relating to drafting (drafts of) all legislation. According to the guide's formulation, "from the perspective of legislative drafting, i.e., from the angle of how the not yet adopted legal norm should be formulated and worded before it gets to the body with decision-making competence, the ministerial decree level of

- 41/42 -

the decree on legislative drafting does not cause a constitutionally problematic situation, (...) the addressee of the drafting obligations is not the body or person constitutionally authorized for law-making, but the legislative drafters participating in the preparation."[39]

The question is whether the application of the Legislative Drafting Decree can be enforced? In the sense that a body would consistently monitors compliance with the rules and sanction any violation of the Legislative Drafting Decree, the answer is no - no such body exists. As we have seen, the Constitutional Court does not itself consider violating legislative drafting requirements to be such a serious, irremediable error that would necessarily and inevitably affect the validity of the legislation. It is also natural that the Constitutional Court only examines normative clarity compliance of legislation that comes before it. However, legislation occasionally comes before the Constitutional Court even after the Legislative Drafting Decree's issuance, where initiators, also referring to the Legislative Drafting Decree, claim normative clarity violation, and therefore legal certainty violation, ultimately rule of law violation, in connection with given regulation. In a 2024 case, the Constitutional Court indirectly confirmed why complying with Legislative Drafting Decree provisions is essential. In a case affecting use of legal terms in the Act on Commerce, initiated by judicial motion, the Court decided on annulment (and exclusion of application of the provisions in the specific case) also considering improperly defined legal terms and their consequences for law application (a legal uncertainty situation that cannot be clearly resolved by interpretation).[40] It was proven that if preparation had taken place in compliance with the rules of the Legislative Drafting Decree regarding the given legal terms, the unconstitutional situation leading to annulment of the provisions would not have arisen.

We must specially mention possible examination of local government decree compliance with the Legislative Drafting Decree. Local government decrees can indeed be reviewed not only for Fundamental Law violation but also for conflict with other legislation, including the Legislative Drafting Decree. The Curia's special council is authorized for this norm control based on motions from capital or county government offices acting in their legality supervisory jurisdiction. The review result can also be similar to constitutional court sanctions: annulment.[41] The Curia's council is making use of this authority: in a 2024 case, for example, it annulled two provisions of the Buda Castle Municipality of Budapest District I decree, referring, among other things, to violation of the rules of the Legislative Drafting Decree.[42]

Furthermore, the provisions of the Legislative Drafting Decree cannot be considered completely lex imperfecta (rules without legal consequences), since they bind public service officials preparing legislation, who ultimately have disciplinary responsibility for culpable violation of obligations arising from their legal status (officials are obliged to perform their duties in the

- 42/43 -

public interest and according to legislation, professional ethical principles, etc.).[43]

The responsibility of the draftsperson, as well as the prominent role of the Minister of Justice, is also confirmed by the Act on Law-making: "Those preparing a law shall be responsible for developing the professional content of the law, while observing the requirements in section 2 (4)" [compliance with substantive and formal requirements arising from the Fundamental Law and the professional requirements of law-making, fitting into the unity of the legal system, compliance with obligations arising from international law and European Union law] and "the Government shall ensure, through the minister responsible for justice that the requirements in section 2(4) are complied with in the course of the governmental preparation of laws."[44]

This guarantee operates through the Act on Law-making: sectoral ministries submit Act and government decree drafts to the Government in agreement with the Minister of Justice, and issue their decrees after requesting the Minister of Justice's opinion (if the Minister of Justice disagrees from a constitutional or European Union legal perspective, the Government decides on the disputed issue based on joint submission). Even independent regulatory body heads may only issue their decrees after requesting the Minister of Justice's opinion, and section 2 (4) aspects are also listed here.[45]

We can therefore see that - beyond possible constitutional legal consequences and employment-related responsibility - procedural rules also ensure compliance with the professional requirements of law-making, making the Minister of Justice (and their ministry) responsible for monitoring compliance with the requirements.[46]

In view of this, the Legislative Drafting Decree can also be conceived as the Minister of Justice's normative solution, placed in the role of "internal defense" or "guardian of legal certainty" to ensure creating legislation complying with normative clarity aspects. That is, the Legislative Drafting Decree became the standard created by them,

- which they set as an expectation for other preparers,

- to which they can align their own review methodology, and

- which simultaneously creates a reference basis for rejecting drafts that do not comply with normative clarity requirements, or a basis for requiring their modification

- during governmental decision preparation (and similarly for government offices acting in legality control jurisdiction for examining local government decrees).

The Minister of Justice's assigned responsibility for section 2 (4) provision compliance is also reflected before the National Assembly during legislative procedure. The Rules of Procedure expect the designated committee to examine these same requirements during the detailed debate of the bill, which must also include its findings related to these requirements in the committee report on the detailed debate.[47] In parliamentary procedure, examining these

- 43/44 -

requirements, including professional requirements of law-making, arises at one more, substantially final point: the Committee on legislation, which incorporates amendment proposals into one motion (the so called "summarising proposal for amendment"), must include the amendment necessary for fulfilling these requirements if the bill does not comply.[48]

After examining the scope and binding force of the Legislative Drafting Decree, it is worth briefly addressing regulatory content as well.

General drafting requirements are given, as we have seen, partly by the Act on Law-making. The Legislative Drafting Decree's general 'normative clarity rule' is: "draft legislation must be worded in a clear, comprehensible and unambiguous manner, in accordance with the rules of the Hungarian language."[49]

The Legislative Drafting Decree establishes basic rules for the use of terms: "If the same concept or provision can be expressed in several ways within one piece of legislation and the legislation issued for its implementation, the same wording must be used for all occurrences of the concept or provision." "Different wording relating to the same regulatory subject in one piece of legislation and in legislation issued for its implementation may only be used if they express different content." "If a certain expression, phrase, or text passage occurs repeatedly in the text of the draft legislation, a short indication may be used instead of the recurring element," which must be defined at the first occurrence of the element to be abbreviated - but not in a title or preamble - together with the expression "hereinafter:" (in parentheses, and only for non-interpreted or abbreviated concepts).[50]

The Legislative Drafting Decree also provides the correct way of expressing normativity. Instead of phrases like "shall", "mandatory", etc., "normative content must be expressed with present tense declarative sentences, using third person singular formulation."[51]

The Legislative Drafting Decree also strictly regulates listings, including taxonomy, prescribing that "it must be made unambiguous whether all of the elements of the listing must be fulfilled, none may be fulfilled, exactly one must be fulfilled, or at least one must be fulfilled to trigger the legal effect," and determining possible modalities for expressing logical connections (including applicable and non-applicable conjunctions and their placement).[52] The Legislative Drafting Decree therefore does not allow exemplary listings (open taxonomy), as this makes the normative content of the provision uncertain.

Chapter III of the Legislative Drafting Decree determines in detail the references that may be used in legislation, separately addressing flexible, rigid, general, institutional, derogatory, administrative body, international treaty and EU legal act reference methods, favoring flexible reference use.[53]

Among special requirements, the Legislative Drafting Decree also addresses the formal division of legislation, i.e., it determines the individual structural units, their hierarchy and designation methods (numbering). The basic unit of legislation is the section (symbol "§"), which should be numbered with continuous Arabic numer-

- 44/45 -

als and can be divided into subsections, points, and subpoints as necessary. Structural units higher than the section (in ascending order: subtitle, chapter, part, and book) may be created if necessary for the transparency of the legislation.[54]

Among special requirements, the Legislative Drafting Decree also provides, among other things, for the logical divisions of legislation and individual logical units, interpretive or authorizing provisions, precise amendment and repeal techniques, and questions such as quantity designation, the role of annexes, the EU compliance clause or the cardinality clause.

The annex to the Legislative Drafting Decree contains wording patterns that must be applied for consistent enforcement of legislative formal uniformity. According to the guide, their additional function is relieving drafters of formulation burden regarding typically used phrases, minimizing error possibilities in provisions that can be standardized this way, and providing practical assistance in solving often complex drafting problems.[55]

The Legislative Drafting Decree regulates in nearly 150 sections and, counting also wording patterns found in the annex, in nearly 30,000 words, ultimately serving normative clarity purposes, ensuring that all elements of the legislation are clear, consistent, and comprehensible both individually and as part of the whole. Its detail, constraints, and "strictness" therefore all express the intention that its requirements guarantee 100% 'normative clarity-compatibility' and can essentially be conceived as a kind of "over-insurance" by the Minister of Justice.

What nevertheless loosens these constraints? First, as we have seen, the Legislative Drafting Decree only regulates bindingly for drafters, and there is no immediate and unconditional sanction for its violation. Additionally, the Legislative Drafting Decree itself allows exceptional deviation from its own rules in several cases - including formulation patterns - "if the regulatory objective cannot be achieved otherwise."[56] The guide explains this by saying that although unifying drafting is expressly an objective, enforcing formal requirements is not an overriding interest; the purpose of legislation is determining normative content, substantive regulation. Therefore where enforcing formal requirements conflicts with substantive normative content that is otherwise constitutional, the formal constraint must be resolved. However, if desired regulatory content can be drafted according to the given wording patterns, then that must be applied.

The practical advantages of binding legislative drafting rules will be further examined in point 5.

IV. Legislative Drafting Rules in Other Legal Systems

For comparison, it is worth examining what types of documents contain legislative drafting rules and what their binding force is in other legal systems worldwide. As we will see, in international practice, such rules are usually not set out in binding legislation but

- 45/46 -

rather appear as professional recommendations or "soft law" guidelines.

First, it is appropriate to examine countries with continental legal systems similar to Hungary, particularly German and Austrian examples, as the influence of these legal traditions is typically strongest in Hungary.[57]

In Germany, the "Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit" (Handbook of Legal Formalities) issued by the Federal Ministry of Justice serves as the basis for drafting legislation. As its title suggests, this is not legislation but a collection of recommendations in handbook form - therefore not mandatory but a detailed professional guidance.[58]

The situation is similar in Austria, where legislative drafting rules also appear in handbook form. The "Handbuch der Rechtssetzungstechnik" (Handbook of Legislative Technique) is published by the Federal Chancellery. The document consists of two parts and a supplement issued for European Union accession.[59]

In France, the "Guide de légistique" (Legislative Guide) provides detailed guidance on legislation drafting, issued by the Government Secretariat operating alongside the French Prime Minister in the form of a document co-signed with the Council of State. The guide is frequently updated in certain elements; the third and last edition issued in unified structure dates back to 2017. Here too, it is not a binding legal norm but a soft law-type recommendation.[60]

In Italy, parliamentary chambers and the government jointly developed the document titled "Regole e raccomandazioni per la formulazione tecnica dei testi legislativi" (Rules and recommendations for the technical formulation of legislative texts), first issued in 1986, then updated and issued in April 2001 in the form of circulars by chamber presidents and the Prime Minister (with identical text). The latter's text was also published in the official gazette.[61] The circular was shortly followed by a "Guida alla redazione dei testi normativi" (Guide to drafting normative texts) document issued by the head of the Legal and Legislative Affairs Directorate of the Prime Minister's Office - supplementing and explaining the circular - which was also published in the official gazette.[62]

In Spain, the document titled "Directrices de técnica normativa" (Normative technique directives) appears in the form of a resolution, published in the official gazette by the State Secretariat of the Prime Minister's Office, but as a Government decision made in agreement with the Council of State. It is applicable to all central legislation preparation.[63]

We do not see a substantially different situation when examining Anglo-Saxon, common law legal system countries either.

In the United Kingdom, the government's specialized body bringing together lawyers dealing with legislative preparation (the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel) issued detailed legislative drafting guidance explicitly for its own members.[64]

In the United States, at the federal level, the House Office of the Legislative Counsel, as the body providing of-

- 46/47 -

ficial legislative support to representatives authorized to submit bills, issued a document titled "Guide to legislative drafting," accompanied by a few-page, summary-type brief guide.[65] Additionally, individual state legislatures in many cases issue their own handbooks to support legislative drafting.[66]

The guide used in Canada, issued by the federal Department of Justice -in both English and French - is also not legally binding. The guide, richly provided with examples and containing academic references, is also addressed to legislative advisors.[67]

In Australia, similar to the English solution, the body bringing together the government's parliamentary-legislative advisors (here Office of Parliamentary Counsel) issues guidelines functioning as recommendations. Interestingly, here not one unified document contains drafting and editing recommendations; instead, there are several general guides: "Drafting Manual", "Guide to Reducing Complexity in Legislation", "Plain English Manual", "Amending Forms Manual".[68] Beyond these, numerous individual guidelines are available for certain special aspects, from definitions through tax law formulation peculiarities to specific procedural questions.[69]

Among sui generis legal systems, it is worth mentioning legislative drafting rules used in the European Union. EU law formulation's peculiarity is also the large number of official languages - EU legal acts are official in 24 languages. The relevant EU documents are based on the December 22, 1998 interinstitutional agreement of the three institutions participating in legal act adoption procedure: the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. It is entitled "Common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation".[70] Based on this was adopted "The Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission for persons involved in the drafting of European Union legislation", whose addressees are institutional staff dealing with legal act preparation.[71] The latter document is supplemented by the joint handbook on formal requirements and drafting of legal acts falling under ordinary legislative procedure, which is also a joint product of the three institutions: the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Commission.[72] Its significance lies in containing detailed wording patterns developed by administrative services. Its characteristic, similar to the above examples, is that it targets those participating in preparation, not legislative bodies themselves, and it is not binding, as its purpose is only to serve as a toolkit for legislative drafters.

The above examples well illustrate that the established worldwide solution for providing legislative drafting and formulation rules is the handbook, guide, and recommendation, whose common characteristics are that

- they are prepared summarizing customary law, as practical guides,

- they do not have legislative binding force,

- their addressee is the public service official legislative drafter,

- 47/48 -

- they provide (some sort of) flexibility,

- they function as soft law, partly on a customary law basis.

This, however, does not mean that the Hungarian example presented above is completely unique. There are a few other countries even in the European Union where binding norms or legislation determine legislative drafting rules.

We find binding but not legislative solutions in Slovakia, Croatia, and recently Portugal. Here we highlight the Slovak example: basic law-making rules are determined in law, with similar scope and abstraction level as the Hungarian Act on Law-making,[73] while detailed drafting and formulation rules are placed in two separate documents. These two documents' common characteristics are that they are not in a form of law, yet they are binding. This is possible because they are parliamentary and government resolutions, which - as a kind of internal norm - determine legislative drafting rules with binding but not legislative force.[74] Understandably, the parliamentary resolution addresses bills and those preparing them as well as lawmakers, while the government resolution regulates government decrees, addressing government officials.

Law-making requirements and drafting rules were determined in unified legislation in Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states. In Romania, moreover, preparation and publication rules, as well as drafting rules, are all placed in a single act: Act No. 24/2000 on the legislative technique for the elaboration of normative instruments, totaling 85 sections.[75]

For unified but lower, government decree-level regulation, we cite Estonia's example, where the Estonian government issued a decree titled "Hea oigusloome ja normitehnika eeskiri" (Rules of good legislative practice and legislative drafting).[76] The decree, adopted based on the authorization of the Act on the Government of the Republic, contains nearly 70 sections. Compared to the Hungarian decree, it shows that it incorporates substantive law-making requirements, preparation rules, and specific drafting rules, which in Hungary are regulated at two levels: in the Act on Law-making (in act form) and in the Legislative Drafting Decree issued in ministerial decree form.

We find multi-level (act and decree) regulation similar to Hungary's among EU countries in Bulgaria. The Act on Normative Instruments, beyond law-making requirements, also provides for impact assessment and consultation, as well as for promulgation and publication questions.[77] This law's implementing decree determines preparation steps on one hand and contains specific legislative drafting rules on the other.[78]

We can therefore see that the soft law solution is primarily characteristic of Anglo-Saxon and Western European countries, while binding regulation is primarily characteristic of Central and Eastern European countries. Some authors see the explanation for this in the fact that more advanced countries with older legal traditions are inherently more committed to better regulation, while in countries where legal (and po-

- 48/49 -

litical) culture is still developing, strict regulation pays off more.[79] Beyond this, the question also leads back to the discussion appearing in legal literature: whether legislative drafting is art or science.[80] In my view, considering that legislative drafting rules derive from constitutional law-making requirements (as set out in preceding points), binding regulation - which posits drafting as applied linguistics and not as art - is better justifiable. In the next chapter, I also want to add a strong practical argument to all this.

V. Possibilities for Algorithmization and Hungarian Examples

Above, we reviewed basic law-making rules, their constitutional determination, and the origins of requirements relating to the drafting of legislation, and the relevant Hungarian rules themselves. In international comparison, it was visible that incorporating drafting rules into legislation is a specific solution characteristic of only a smaller part of countries. In connection with this, we briefly addressed theoretical, legal dogmatic differences between binding legislative form and recommendation or handbook-type guides. In this chapter, we add a significant practical aspect: the binding form established in legislation creates an excellent base for the algorithmization of these rules.

But what does algorithmizing legislative drafting rules mean? Drafting rules - beyond fulfilling the already described constitutional, normative clarity requirements - can practically be considered methodological support for legislative preparation. However, this methodological support can be made more efficient if technological support is also added, i.e., draftspersons can prepare draft texts with the help of dedicated software or application. This software can provide general text editing support (e.g., Microsoft Word equipped with an appropriate extension[81]), but it can also be a more specific software that knows and enforces the elements of methodological support. The latter means algorithmizing legislative drafting rules. Here it is worth distinguishing between algorithmization in the narrow sense (deterministic, rule-based programming) and solutions based on artificial intelligence and large language models (the latter can also be included in broader sense legislative drafting support).

What advantages does algorithmizing legislative drafting bring? The primary positive effects of technological support can be summarized as follows:

- it can reduce time spent on drafting, or time can be spent on actual policy content and its more well-founded elaboration instead of complying with formal requirements, thereby increasing the efficiency of the process,

- it can reduce drafting (even numbering, structural) and wording (even linguistic) errors and inconsistencies, thereby reducing the number of possibly

- 49/50 -

unenforceable amendments as well as amendments correcting possible drafting errors,

- and all these can improve the quality of legislation and law-making in general.[82]

The advantages of using digital tools in legislative preparation are also confirmed by OECD reports and recommendations. For example, they establish that applying algorithmized regulation-management tools based on digital technologies (including even those supporting impact assessment) increases the agility, quality and coherence of the legislative system, while reducing administrative burdens and contributing to the reduction of errors and inconsistencies.[83]

According to findings of studies ordered by the European Commission to examine the effectiveness of the LEOS application, the artificial intelligence-based solution can improve the quality and efficiency of the legislative process, for example, by

- assisting or even replacing manually performed tasks that carry error possibilities, with templates and patterns,

- automating repetitive tasks,

- increasing text clarity and comprehensibility, consistent reuse of legal terms,

- helping to make deviations and exceptions clear,

- assisting in information extraction and analysis, more consistently enforcing regulatory objectives, and

- performing quality control, even batch corrections.[84]

We must note that here we specifically brought examples of the algorithmization advantages of drafting, but a complex digital solution covering the entire process of legislative preparation can bring numerous additional advantages from greater transparency to machine processability and increasing awareness and acceptance of legislation.

The next question is which legislative drafting rules can be algorithmized? Clearly, the more specific a rule is, the more it can be programmed (algorithmized in the narrow sense), and conversely, the more general it is, the more difficult its IT description. Accordingly, structural rules and template-based formulations are typically well programmable, and general, linguistic interpretation-requiring wording rules very cumbersome (e.g., by incorporating control questions) or not at all. The table below briefly exemplifies this.

If we examine broad sense algorithmization from a similar perspective, i.e., draft processing (or generation) with the help of large language models and artificial intelligence, then naturally we do not see a similar sharp difference between general and specific legislative drafting rules; AI-based support also enables the application of general wording requirements. In exchange, it is presumably less "foolproof" when applying "codable" requirements, e.g., structural rules.

Next, it is worth considering the specific feature of the Hungarian example: what difference does it make for algorithmization whether drafting

- 50/51 -

Table 1. Examples of easily and difficult or non-algorithmizable legislative drafting rules.

- 51/52 -

rules are issued as recommendation or guideline, rather than as binding legislation?

Recommendation, handbook, guide (soft law) characteristics are that

- they serve as guidance for drafters,

- the possibility of deviation from them is given,

- following the guidelines may also depend on customs and traditions, but may also change if necessity requires,

- they are often more uncertain or flexible in their formulation (e.g., "recommended", "expedient", "generally" type formulations are not manageable for algorithms),

- there are no automatable steps, or transforming uncertain formulations into machine-executable rules may be based on arbitrary developer decisions, which lacks legal basis,

- machine "enforcement" of non-binding recommendations not only lacks legal basis but may also alienate users, as it takes away flexibility otherwise present in the guidance based on arbitrary, developer decisions,

- if automated systems allow deviation from the guidelines, then automatic structuring, automated checking or validation becomes less reliable, and deviations cannot be "sanctioned".

In contrast, the characteristics of binding legislative drafting rules (hard law) are that

- they are binding for drafters,

- the possibility of deviation (unless the provision itself explicitly pro for it) is not given,

- following the rules is non-negotiable,

- the rules are formalized, unambiguous, precise in their formulation, allow only explicitly determined deviation, therefore their machine processability is significantly better,

- algorithmization does not require arbitrary developer decisions,

- enforcement through programming rests on legal foundations -it is not abuse-like but precisely a tool ensuring complete implementation of legislation,

- certain drafting or even control or correction steps can be completely automated,

- users only get the experience of an application helping them within the framework of otherwise binding rules,

- software tools are capable of automatically checking compliance, indicating errors, or even suggesting corrections,

- deviations are clearly identifiable and legally accountable.

We should particularly emphasize that regarding the hard law vs. soft law question, it is no longer necessary to differentiate between narrow and broad sense algorithmization; the above aspects are also applicable for artificial intelligence-based or mixed solutions, i.e., the advantage of binding rules (requirements incorporated into legislation) also prevails in these cases.

- 52/53 -

Interestingly, in the latest legal tech thinking - indirectly - we can find a final argument for the fact that drafting rules elevated to formal legislative requirements are better algorithmizable. The "rule(s) as code" argument in legal literature points out that formalizing and standardizing regulatory requirements is a key condition for converting normative texts into machine-processed code. The more formalized and standardized the rule, the easier it is to develop digital tools to support or automate certain parts of the legislative process.[85] Machine readability and processability also require clear, unambiguous, and properly established rules - therefore formally determined rules (e.g. legislation). Interestingly, the rules as code approach, based on a test also presented in literature, proved specifically suitable for recognizing drafting-wording errors in draft legislation and for checking the effect of a proposed amendment. According to the finding, the methodology aims to handle such errors at an early stage, so it can actually have a positive effect on possible automation.[86]

We must note that although the Legislative Drafting Decree was not yet prepared specifically for machine readability and processability, as shown above, its rules' nature and elaboration enable (as will be seen from examples below, enabled) easier algorithmization.

Naturally, the algorithmization advantages of binding legislation do not mean that in those countries (legal systems) where there are only recommendations and guides on this subject, algorithmization tools could not be used; practice does not support this either.[87] However, it is certain that programming (coding) non-binding guidelines comes with necessary compromises.

In Hungary, the Parliamentary ICT System for Legislation (ParLex) was the first complex technological support providing a web-based application that, building on the prescriptions of the Legislative Drafting Decree, ensured the drafting and electronic submission of bills and other parliamentary documents, as well as parliamentary process management, all with appropriate user and data security.[88] It was introduced in autumn 2016, operating in full functionality from the spring 2017 session period. The President of the National Assembly currently prescribes the use of this system as the electronic form of document submission, from which deviation is only possible exceptionally.[89] The ParLex system was expanded from August 2021, becoming part (a subsystem) of the so-called Integrated Legislative System, whose elements are therefore:

- EJR (Electronic Drafting System): a system supporting legislative drafting functions based on the Legislative Drafting Decree (prevalidation, automatic legislative text processing and breakdown into elementary units, structuring, reference building),

- GovLex: a workflow system supporting the governmental legislative process,

- 53/54 -

- LocLex: a workflow system supporting the local government legislative process,

- ParLex: the parliamentary document drafting and process management system (integrated),

- NJT: integration of the so-called National Legislation Database containing Hungary's laws,

- WMS: integration of the system supporting the publication of the official gazette,

- EUConfLex: system supporting European Union legal harmonization.[90]

The individual subsystems of the Integrated Legislative System therefore cover all steps of the legislative process from drafting to procedure (process) management, promulgation, and subsequent publication. As the developer described, "higher quality law-making is expected from the introduction of the expert framework system, where every activity from the first draft of legislation to promulgation in the Hungarian Official Gazette is IT-supported and interconnected."[91]

It is clear, however, that the next stage in developing Hungary's current legislative drafting system should build on artificial intelligence and large language models as well, thereby achieving broader sense algorithmization. Such a future hybrid system would combine the advantages of both narrow and broad algorithmization, offering the precision and consistency of rule-based automation alongside the flexibility and contextual understanding of AI-powered language processing.

VI. Conclusion

This study aimed to show the significance of establishing legislative drafting rules as binding norms within the Hungarian law-making environment and to highlight their practical consequences from the perspective of algorithmisation and digital law-making. Its starting point is legal certainty dogmatics derived by the Constitutional Court from the rule of law principle, particularly the requirement of normative clarity. In practice, this requirement is expressed by the Act on Law-making and ultimately enforced, under its authorization, by the Decree of the Minister of Justice on legislative drafting. The Decree sets out detailed, binding standards for drafting - addressed to legislative drafters.

In international comparison, Hungary's "hard law" solution is in the minority, though not without parallels. Several Central and Eastern European countries regulate drafting rules in legislation or binding internal norms, whereas in Western Europe and in the Anglo-Saxon world, as well as in EU institutions, using soft law, handbooks, and guidelines is the prevailing approach. This contrast is not merely theoretical: algorithmization, or the "rule as code" approach, functions effectively where drafting prescriptions are formalized, uniform, and legally binding. The more precise the rule, the narrower the room for developer discretion and the more reliable the automated validation.

The peculiarity of the Hungarian model lies in two aspects. First, the Leg-

- 54/55 -

islative Drafting Decree unifies practice and ensures predictability, thereby directly serving the requirement of legal certainty. Second - and this is the central argument of the study - the precise, formalized, and binding nature of the rules makes them particularly well suited to introducing algorithmic support. Many rules (structural units, numbering, references, wording patterns) can be deterministically coded, while linguistic requirements that are less easily codified may increasingly be supported in the future by artificial intelligence-based tools. In fact, Hungarian practice has already implemented algorithmization in the narrower sense: systems such as ParLex and the Integrated Legislative System, relying on the Drafting Decree, provide templates, secure appropriate legislative structures, automate references, and support process control.

Naturally, hard law by itself does not guarantee substantive constitutionality, nor are the Hungarian systems implementing narrow sense algorithmization almighty. Nevertheless, they represent important and necessary stages on the path towards better legislation. The combination of clear, binding rules and digital tools - augmented by the future application of AI - can deliver real quality improvements in law-making. Such a hybrid model of legislative preparation will not replace (human) drafters altogether, but it will enable them to concentrate more fully on substantive policy questions within the necessarily limited time available. The aimed result of this "joint work" is legislation drafted quickly and accurately, with more consistent usage of terms, clearer language, more transparent amendments, and better application. ■

NOTES

[1] OECD reports and recommendations on good governance and regulatory policy repeatedly emphasize that good legislative drafting and formulation techniques and procedures are indispensable for ensuring the quality of legislation and law-making, which plays a decisive role in creating clarity, precision, conciseness and coherence, as well as promoting the transparency and efficiency of the legislative process. OECD: Good Governance in Egypt: Legislative Drafting Manual for Better Policy. OECD, 2019. pp. 19-10. https://doi.org/10.1787/g1g9dd64-en

[2] Helen Xanthaki: Drafting Manuals and Quality in Legislation: Positive Contribution towards Certainty in the Law or Impediment to the Necessity for Dynamism of Rules? Legisprudence. 1010/4. pp. 114-116. and 119-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511467.1010.11414705, Drinóczi Tímea: Quality Drafting - The Case of Hungary. Legisprudence. 1010/4. pp. 159-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511467.1010.11414707

[3] Matia Vannoni - Moritz Osnabrugge: Quality of legislation and compliance: a natural language processing approach. Political Science Research and Methods 1015/13. p. 736.

[4] OECD: Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance. OECD, 2012. pp. 3-4., 5-6. https://web-archive.oecd.org/1011-11-05/86391-49990817.pdf , and OECD: Good Governance in Egypt: Legislative Drafting Manual for Better Policy. OECD, 2019. p. 16. https://doi.org/10.1787/g1g9dd64-en

[5] OECD: Regulatory Policy and Governance: Supporting Economic Growth and Serving the Public Interest. OECD Publishing, 2011. pp. 8., 10., 57. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789164116573-en, and Drinóczi: cited work. pp. 159-160.

[6] Decision of the Constitutional Court of Hungary (hereinafter referred to as: CC Decision) 11/1992. (III. 5.), section. IV. 1.

[7] See e.g. CC Decision 9/1992. (I. 30.) sections V. 1-3.; CC Decision 5/1997. (II. 7.) section II. 3.

[8] CC Decision 11/1992 (III. 5.), CC Decision 1/1999. (11.24.).

[9] CC Decision 11/1994. (III.2.), CC Decision 8/2003. (III.14.).

[10] CC Decision 25/1992. (IV.30.), CC Decision 28/1992. (IV.30.).

- 55/56 -

[11] CC Decision 7/1992. (I. 30.), CC Decision 57/1994. (XI.17), CC Decision 110/2009. (XI. 18).

[12] CC Decision 11/1992. (III.5.).

[13] CC Decision 25/1992. (IV.30.).

[14] CC Decision 19/1993. (III. 27).

[15] CC Decision 37/2006. (IX. 20.), CC Decision 121/2009. (XII. 17.).

[16] CC Decision 42/1995. (VI. 30.), CC Decision 108/B/2000.

[17] CC Decision 8/2003. (III. 14.).

[18] Among others see CC Decision 9/1992. (I. 30.), CC Decision 26/1992. (IV. 30), CC Decision 22/1997. (II. 25.), CC Decision 42/1997. (VII. 1.), CC Decision 44/1997. (II. 19.), CC Decision 58/1997. (XI. 5.), CC Decision 15/1998. (I. 8.), CC Decision 10/2001. (II. 12.), CC Decision 21/2001. (VI. 21.).

[19] Fundamental Law Article B (1). "Hungary shall be an independent, democratic rule-of-law state."

[20] Fundamental Law Articles S and T, as well as provisions relating to individual law-makers, thus the National Assembly, the Government and members of the Government, the Governor of the MNB, the head of independent regulatory bodies, local governments, also determining the hierarchy of legislation. Article 28 also states regarding the interpretation of law by courts that the text of legislation must be taken as a basis during law enforcement, specifically in harmony with their purpose - readable from the preamble and reasoning - and with the Fundamental Law (primacy of positive law).

[21] Act on Law-making section 2 (1)-(2).

[22] Act on Law-making section 3.

[23] Act on Law-making section 8 (1) and section 10 (1), but this scope also includes the determination of non-amendable or non-repealable provisions, entry into force with different text, rules on declaring non-entry into force or automatic deregulation (Act on Law-making sections 8-14.)

[24] Act on Law-making section 2 (3) and section

[26] (1).

[25] Act on Law-making section 2 (5) b).

[26] Act on Law-making sections 6-7. There is no main rule (like 15 days) for the time of entry into force as in the above example; the law-maker always provides for this on a case-by-case basis.

[27] Act on Law-making section 15, and regarding the legal consequences of constitutional court decisions, Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court sections 45-46 (general prohibition of application e.g.: "the annulled legislation or legislative provision loses its force on the day following the publication of the Constitutional Court's decision on annulment in the Hungarian Official Gazette or in the Official Gazette of Constitutional Court Decisions - if the latter publication precedes the Hungarian Official Gazette - and may not be applied from that day".

[28] Act on Law-making section 4, section 16/A (1).

[29] Act on Law-making section 2 (4).

[30] Some rules, primarily provisions relating to the designation of legislation during promulgation, were previously determined in legislation, in the Decree 12/1987. (XII. 29.) IM on legislative drafting, born before the change of regime, and also an IM directive from the pre-change of regime period [IM directive 7001/1988. (IK.11) on legislative drafting], as well as a guide summarizing these and supplemented with explanations (Methodological Guide to Legislative Drafting. Ministry of Justice, 1999.) addressed legislative drafting. However, these were no longer in force in 2009, so the professional rules of legislative drafting could only be applied through customary law.

[31] Guide to the Legislative Drafting Decree. Prepared by the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement. [1]-[2]. https://web.archive.org/web/20100510192503/ http://kodifikacio.irm.gov.hu/node/36

[32] Guide... [4].

[33] Guide... [5].

[34] Guide. [7].

[35] CC Decision 167/B/1991., CC Decision 1/1999. (II. 24.), CC Decision 54/1996. (XI. 30.).

[36] CC Decision 28/2013. (X. 9.) [20].

[37] Legislative Drafting Decree section 1 (1) and (3)-(4).

[38] A member of the Government shall adopt decrees acting on the basis of authorisation by an Act or a government decree and within their functions (either autonomously or in agreement with other Ministers); no such decree shall conflict with any Act, government decree or decree of the Governor of the Hungarian National Bank. Fundamental Law Article 18 (3) and Article T (3). The provision does not differ substantially from the relevant provision of the former Constitution. Ministerial law-making is therefore only derivative, its basis is the authorization of the Act on Law-making [Act on Law-making section 30 (2): "The Minister responsible for justice shall be authorized to lay down in a decree the detailed rules of legislative drafting."], and the ministerial decree occupies the lowest place in the hierarchy of central legislation. Based on all this, it cannot bind the law-making body or person.

- 56/57 -

[39] Guide ... [8].

[40] CC Decision 14/2024. (VII. 8.).

[41] Fundamental Law Article 25 (2), Article 32 (4).

[42] Decision No. Köf.5.015/2024/5. According to the reasoning of the decision, the provisions of the law indicated in the introductory part of the local government decree do not provide authorization for regulating what is contained in the annulled provision, so the challenged local government provision conflicts with sections 54 (1) and 55 (5) of the Legislative Drafting Decree (indication of the validity requirements of law-making in the introductory part of the decree).

[43] Act CXCIX of 2011 on Public Service Officials section 76(1)(a), section 155(1).

[44] Act on Law-making section 16(1)-(2).

[45] Act on Law-making section 16(3)-(4).

[46] The Government's rules of procedure institutionalize additional procedural guarantees by the Minister of Justice in the workflow of governmental decision preparation [currently Government Decision 1352/2022. (VII. 21.) on the Government's rules of procedure section 17 (1) a) or sections 63/a-63/b].

[47] OGY Resolution 10/2014 (24 February) of the National Assembly laying down certain provisions of the Rules of Procedure section 44 (1): "In the course of the detailed debate, the designated committee shall examine whether the legislative proposal a) complies with the content and form requirements arising from the Fundamental Law, b) fits into the unity of the legal system, c) complies with the obligations arising from international law and the law of the European Union, and d) complies with the professional requirements of law making." Section 45 (6) provides for the report.

[48] Resolution section 46 (5). In addition, in case of postponement of the final vote, a so-called amendment proposal preparing the final vote may also be submitted for compliance with the requirements specified in section 44 (1) [section 52 (1) provides for this.

[49] Legislative Drafting Decree section 1.

[50] Legislative Drafting Decree sections 4-6.

[51] Act on Law-making section 2 (5) b), Legislative Drafting Decree section 3 (2).

[51] Legislative Drafting Decree section 7.

[53] Legislative Drafting Decree sections 17-18. Exception is reference to the Fundamental Law or if the referenced legislation or provision cannot be clearly identified in this way.

[54] Legislative Drafting Decree section 36 (2)-(3).

[55] Guide. [14].

[56] Legislative Drafting Decree section 1 (2), section 25 (2), section 30 (2), section 79 (1) c), section 132 (2).

[57] This is confirmed by legal literature as well as numerous Hungarian legislative reasonings or Constitutional Court decisions. See for example: The Austrian Influence on Hungarian Constitutional and Administrative Law and Scholarly Literature (19202020). Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht (ZoR): Journal of Public Law, 1011/1. pp. 469-490. or the reasoning of Act V of 1013 on the Civil Code, the reasoning of Act CXXX of 2016 on civil procedure, the reasoning of Act XC of 2017 on criminal procedure, CC Decision 32/2021. (XII. 20.) [70] etc.

[58] Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit. Bundesministerium der Justiz. 4th edition. 1014. https://hdr4.bmj.de/Webs/HDR/DE/Inhaltsuebersicht/inhaltsuebersicht.html?nn=165500

[59] Handbuch der Rechtssetzungstechnik. Bundeskanzleramt. 1990. https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:f4301575-c575-403b-9300-a7dc01ec1a51/legrl1990.pdf https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:d5fc9489-84c5-4ec3-be3f-9a71c4fb8073/wvrl.pdf https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:05576711-8715-4c8b-a3e8-fda1f437e861/addendum.doc https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/agenda/verfassung/legistik/e-recht-legistische-richtlinien.html

[60] Guide de légistique. Secrétariat général du Gouvernement. 3rd edition. 1017. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/contenu/menu/autour-de-la-loi/guide-de-legistique

[61] Circolare 10 aprile 1001, n. 10888. Regole e raccomandazioni per la formulazione tecnica dei testi legislativi. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/seriegenerale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2001-04-27&atto.codiceRedazionale=001A4601

[62] Circolare 2 maggio 2001, n. 10888 Guida alla redazione dei testi normativi. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2001-05-03&atto.codiceRedazionale=001A4875

[63] Directrices de técnica normativa. Resolución de 28 de julio de 2005, de la Subsecretaría. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/res/2005/07/28/(1)

[64] Office of the Parliamentary Counsel drafting guidance. 4 April 1014. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drafting-bills-for-parliament/1014-03-19-drafting-guidance

[65] House Office of the Legislative Counsel Guide to Legislative Drafting. https://legcounsel.house.gov/holc-guide-legislative-drafting. The brief guide is https://legcounsel.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/legcounsel-evo.house.gov/fues/documents/quick_guide_0.pdf

- 57/58 -

[66] These are collected by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the organization intended to promote cooperation among state legislatures. The online legislative handbooks of individual states are available here: https://www.ncsl.org/resources/details/online-drafting-manuals

[67] The English version is titled "Legistics (2024)", the French "Guide fédéral de jurilinguistique législative française (2023)" (Federal guide to French legislative jurilinguistics). https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/legis-redact/index.html

[68] https://www.opc.gov.au/drafting-resources/drafting-general

[69] Drafting directions. Office of Parliamentary Counsel. https://www.opc.gov.au/drafting-resources/drafting-directions

[70] Interinstitutional Agreement (22 December 1998) on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation (1999/C73/01). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HU/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31999Y0317%2801%29

[71] Second edition, 2013. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/techleg/KB0213228HUN.pdf

[72] March 2022 edition. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/55402/joint_handbook_hu_31-march-2022.pdf

[73] 400/2015. Z. z.o tvorbe právnych predpisov a o Zbierke zákonov Slovenskej republiky a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Act 400/2015 on the creation of legal regulations and on the Collection of Laws of the Slovak Republic and on the amendment and supplementation of certain laws). https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2015/400/20240306

[74] The parliamentary resolution: Legislatívne pravidlá tvorby zákonov č. 19/1997 Z. z. (Legislative rules for law-making). https://www.nrsr.sk/web/Static/sk-SK/NRSR/Doc/zdJptz.pdf The government resolution: LEGISLATÍVNE PRAVIDLÁ VLÁDY SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY schválené uznesením vlády Slovenskej republiky z 25. septembra 2024 č. 561. (Legislative rules of the Government of the Slovak Republic). https://www.vlada.gov.sk/site/assets/files/2169/lp_25092024.pdf?csrt=3779208987657510133

[75] Legea nr. 24/2000 privind normele de tehnică legislativă pentru elaborarea actelor normative. https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/21698

[76] Adopted on December 22, 2011, under number 180, entry into force: 2012.01.01. The government decree is available in Estonian on the Estonian official gazette website: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/129122011228

[77] Promulgated in the official gazette No. 27 of April 3, 1973. The consolidated text is https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2127837184

[78] Decree No. 883 of April 24, 1974 on the implementation of the Act on Normative Acts. The consolidated text is https://legislation.apis.bg/doc/5851/0#3203286

[79] Drinóczi: cited work. pp. 160-161.

[80] See e.g. Ronan Cormacain: An Empirical Study of the Usefulness of Legislative Drafting Manuals. The Theory and Practice of Legislation. 2013/2. pp. 206-208. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5235/205088413808821417, and Xanthaki: cited work. pp. 121-123.

[81] In Austria, for example, the software supporting legislative preparation, operating under the name E-Recht, is based on Microsoft Word. Regarding the operation of the extension, see the Federal Chancellery's official information issued in 2021: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:a4a52199-0d7e-42c7-8a9a-89df7d4bb8a3/rs_novellieren_legistik_12022021.pdf

[82] All these are logically self-explanatory, but the individual advantages are also confirmed by case studies, see for example: Jaja, Tonye Clinton - Lamarre, Chantal: Application of information communication technology (ICT) to legislative drafting: case studies of legislative drafting assistant softwares in Nigeria and Canada. Rivista Italiana di Informatica e Diritto. 2020/2. pp. 36., 40. https://www.rivistaitalianadiinformaticaediritto.it/index.php/RIID/article/view/55/40

[83] OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021. pp. 27, 31, 39-40., and OECD 2011, p. 24.

[84] Monica Palmirani - Fabio Vitali - Willy Van Puymbroeck - Fernando Nubla Durango: Legal Drafting in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Digitisation. European Commission 2022. pp. 69-75. https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/2022-06/Drafting%20legislation%20in%20the%20era%20of%20AI%20and%20digitisation%20%E2%80%93%20study.pdf, and Fitsilis, Fotios - Mikros, George: AI-based solutions for legislative drafting in the EU. European Commission 2024. pp. 12-13. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/dece3782-90ed-11ef-a130-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

[85] Cracking the code. Rulemaking for humans

- 58/59 -

and machines. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance. 2020. chapters 2-4, 6, 8. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/cracking-the-code_3afe6ba5-en. html, Ződi Zsolt: What Will Robot Laws Look Like? The Code of AI and Human Laws, Acta Universitatis Sapientiae: Legal Studies, 2019/2. pp. 257-260., 263., and Eva Micheler - Anna Whaley: Regulatory Technology: Replacing Law with Computer Code. European Business Organization Law Review 2020/21. pp. 349-377 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40804-019-00151-1 (downloaded: July 21, 2025)

[86] Jason Morris: Constraint Answer Set Programming as a Tool to Improve Legislative Drafting: A Rules as Code Experiment. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, São Paulo, Brazil, 2021 June 21-25. pp. 262-263. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cclaw/7

[87] In the United Kingdom, which operates with recommendation-type guides (as presented above), a drafting support software was previously used under the name FrameMaker, most recently under the name LawMaker. LawMaker is an online application that supports both the drafting and amendment of bills and secondary legislation. The software and its explanation are available here: https://help.lawmaker.legislation.gov.uk/help/live/getting-started

[88] https://www.parlament.hu/elektronikus-iromanyszerkesztes-es-benyujtas-a-parlex-rendszer- The system was recognized with a "Best Practice" award by the European Institute of Public Administration in 2019. Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tg2PnGs0fqwi60gywlCf9BJ3JsfzT3jd/view

[89] The President of the Hungarian National Assembly, based on the rules of procedure, determines in a circular the possible cases of electronic submission of individual motions and deviation from it (for example, if the document to be submitted - presumably deviating from the Legislative Drafting Decree - contains such a structural unit or drafting solution that IJR-ParLex cannot handle). https://www.parlament.hu/documents/d/guest/elnoki-allasfoglalas_elektronikus-benyujtas_20250224

[90] Based on the technical description of the contract signed for further development of the Integrated Legislative System (IJR). The contracting authority was Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó Kft. Source: https://www.mhk.hu/files/BK%C3%96FOPSZ732020.pdf

[91] Source: https://www.mhk.hu/files/sajtok_IJRcikk_18-05-11.pdf