Hungarian Association of Judges: Sovereignty Protection Office a threat to the rule of law

Numerous representatives of the legal profession have already expressed their concerns regarding the proposed law designed to stymie the operation of NGOs and the independent press in Hungary, and the Hungarian Association of Judges agrees with the professional observations made by the Association of Lawyers, a statement released by the Hungarian Association of Judges (MABIE).

According to the organization, the bill violates the fundamental principles of democratic rule of law on several points, in particular with regard to the separation of powers, legal certainty, and the right of access to the courts. They emphasize that

the broad and insufficiently defined scope of powers and instruments given to the Sovereignty Protection Office, which is not part of the legal order, are a threat to the rule of law.

The office could be able to monitor and sanction organizations and individuals without the affected parties having access to adequate legal remedies. This violates some of the basic rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law, including the right to a fair trial and the freedom of association.

An “appeal system” which is limited to directly appealing to the Supreme Court only, while the Supreme Court has no power to change the decisions in question, constitutes a serious restriction of the rights of the parties concerned. This approach is contrary to the right of access to the courts and the principle of effective legal remedy, and also violates the independence of the courts by “eliminating” lower-level forums.

The Hungarian Association of Judges emphasizes that such legislative changes will, in the long term, undermine public confidence not only in the administration of justice and its effectiveness, but will also threaten the stability and existence of democratic institutions.

The statement concludes as follows:

We hereby draw the attention of the legislator to the fact that, in the interests of the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights, the bill – which, contrary to its name, is not transparent – requires an immediate, thorough and comprehensive review.