recent translations summaries

2022. March 18.

Decision 3/2022 (III. 18.) AB

Decision number: IV/81/2022.
Subject of the case:

Rejecting the petition aimed at establishing a conflict with the Fundamental Law and annulling the ruling No. Knk.IV.40645/2021/19 of the Curia

The Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint aimed at establishing the lack of conformity with the Fundamental Law and annulling the decision of the Curia delivered in the case of a referendum. The procedure was based on the Government’s initiative for a national referendum, which led the National Election Committee to authenticate, by its decision No. 15/2021, the following question proposed to be put to a referendum: “Do you support the promotion of gender reassignment therapy for minor children?” The petitioner and other respondents filed a petition for review with the Curia, asking for the decision to be changed and the authentication of the question to be refused. The Curia upheld the decision of the National Election Committee, and the Parliament ordered the question to be put to a referendum. In the petitioner’s view, the statement found in principle in the Curia’s decision that “the public law consequences based on the Fundamental Law of a referendum initiative put forward by the voters and a referendum initiated by the President of the Republic and the Government are different, and therefore the examination of their conditions is also different” is contrary to the Fundamental Law. According to the petitioner, the ruling of the Curia unconstitutionally restricts the right to a referendum, as it exempts the public authorities as initiators, specified in the Fundamental Law, from the examination of the legal and constitutional requirements set as conditions for authentication. The Constitutional Court found that in its constitutional complaint, the petitioner only claimed that the Curia had applied the relevant principle in the case concerned, but did not prove that it had caused a concrete injury of rights in connection with the certification of the referendum question. The petition contained arguments about the differences in certain elements of the certification, but did not specifically indicate which element of the legal analysis was missing in relation to the authentication of the referendum question, or which part of the analysis deviated from the requirements previously developed by the Constitutional Court. In connection with the authentication, the decision of the Curia could not be found to be contrary to the Fundamental Law: the Curia examined whether the referendum question fell within the scope of the subject-matter prohibited by the Fundamental Law, whether the referendum question fell within the duties and powers of the National Assembly, and examined the clarity of the referendum question, as well as the legislative clarity, referring to the relevant case law of the Constitutional Court and the Curia. Therefore, in the view of the Constitutional Court’s panel, the Curia’s ruling does not violate the provisions of the Fundamental Law, and the constitutional complaint was rejected.