Hungary's Constitutional Court Must Examine Laws Undermining the Legal System

Hungary's Constitutional Court holds a crucial role in safeguarding the constitution, ensuring that no legal provision can become part of the fundamental law without proper integration. This principle, known as the "integration mandate," requires that amendments do not introduce irresolvable conflicts within the constitutional norms.

Legal experts highlight that the court's majority reasoning leaves open the possibility of substantively examining constitutional amendments in certain cases. This includes assessing the historical application and incorporation of democratic rule of law principles, guarantees, and values. The court's function is to preserve the hierarchy of the legal system and protect the constitution as a stable, unified document against legal uncertainty.

Legal scholars like Zoltán Lomnici Jr. point to parallels between the reasoning of constitutional law experts Béla Pokol and István Stumpf. Both have emphasized the importance of defending the constitution's unity and coherence, and the court's role in maintaining legal order. They argue that the constitution should not be used as a tool for political retribution but as a basis for stable, future-oriented, and universally applicable legislation.

A significant ruling from the Constitutional Court could provide strong legal and political backing for the President's initiatives. It would clarify that the constitution is not a means for settling political scores, thereby encouraging the adoption of general, equally applicable rules. Such a decision could place considerable pressure on the current "Tisza government," potentially making it more difficult to legitimize ad hoc constitutional amendments aimed at removing specific individuals. It could also lead to constitutional crises if legislative actions disregard such a ruling.