The Constitutional Court declared in its decision that the provisions of the Act on the Elections of the Members of the Parliament concerning the surplus votes do not violate the constitutional requirements concerning the equality of right to vote.

The petitioners submitted a constitutional complaint and requested the examination of the Act on the Elections of the Members of the Parliament. According to their standpoint, a provision of the concerned Act is contrary to the requirement of the equality of right to vote, namely, that those votes cast for the winner candidate in the single-member constituency and the number of votes remaining after deducting the number of votes for the runner-up candidate plus one are considered as surplus votes during the distribution of the mandates from the national list. According to the petitioners, the mandates which may be won from the national list by the surplus votes are meant to be a compensation in connection with the votes cast in the single-member constituency. However, the compensation of the winner without any constitutional reason restricts the requirement of the equal weight of votes.

In accordance with its previous practice, the Constitutional Court has pointed out that the Fundamental Law – as well as the previous Constitution – does not contain provisions in details about the electoral system itself; it prescribes only some electoral principles. Therefore, the Parliament has a wide freedom to decide on the electoral system, the rules of the electoral procedure and the order of the distribution of mandates. However, this does not mean that the requirements of the Fundamental Law should not be taken into account.

The practice of the Constitutional Court does not require the “effective equality” of the right to vote, thus the equality of right to vote does not mean that expressed political wills prevail equally without any derogation.

The Constitutional Court explicated that the application of the majoritarian, proportional or the mixed electoral system does not mean the violation of the equal weight of the votes. The challenged provision in the petition does not obstruct the right of the petitioners to vote and stand as a candidate in elections of Members of Parliament and it does not violate the equal chance of the candidates prior to the elections. According to the decision of the Constitutional Court, the present system does not support the organisation whose candidate won the relative majority during the elections, but supports the organisation which nominated the winner candidate in the single-member constituency and this is not necessarily the same organisation with the relative majority regarding the final result of the elections. Furthermore, only a significant number of surplus votes cast for the winner candidate results in a mandate.

Dr. Béla Pokol judge attached concurring opinion and Dr. András Bragyova, Dr. László Kiss and Dr. Miklós Lévay judges attached dissenting opinion to the decision.