Persons or organisations may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court against a judicial decision if they themselves are affected by the case and the decision violates their rights laid down in the Fundamental Law. The Constitutional Court’s decision pointed out: the regulation to restrict the opening hours in the party district, as challenged by the petitioner, has not yet been adopted, threfore the violation of the rights could not have taken place. Although the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint related to the referendum question, the petitioner shall be free to file – after exhausting the appropriate possibilities for legal remedy – a direct constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if, in the future, the local government adopts a decree considered by the petitioner to be contrary to the Fundamental Law.

As emphasized by the Constitutional Court in its recent decision: the freedom of expression enjoys extraordinary protection in the scope of debating public affairs, as it is a requirement under the formation of democratic public opinion that all citizens of the society should be able to express their thoughts freely. Accordingly, the expression of opinions about public affairs can only be restricted in a limited scope when it violates the unrestrictable essence of human dignity that determines the human status, i.e. if it is aimed at humiliating the human core of the other person. The freedom of expression shall not be applicable to such communications.

The National Assembly has 60 days to make a decision on acknowledging a church, but at present there are no legal sanctions whatsoever connected to the failure to do so, resulting in the absence of a legal remedy for the affected religious organisation, if no decision is adopted. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court specified as a requirement under the Fundamental Law that the rules of fair procedure should also be enforced during the procedure aimed at obtaining the status of “established church”. Therefore the Court established in its latest decision the existence of an omission resulting in the violation of the Fundamental Law and it called upon the National Assembly to adopt legislation.

According to the recent decision of the Constitutional Court, no rumour-spreading shall be established when a report is published in the press on a press conference about public affairs of public figures, if the reporting gives accurate account of what has been presented there, without any own assessment, by clearly indicating the sources of information, and by providing an opportunity to publish the reply or the rebuttal of the person affected by the statements of facts that may infringe one’s reputation. The Court annulled the judgement that had reached a conclusion to the contrary. The reporting about the press conference of public figures shall be regarded as an exemption when journalists are exempted from their obligation of verifying the truthfulness of the facts published.