¹ Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], July 14, 2014, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VfSlg] No. 145/2010 (Austria).Google Scholar

² Zedenek, Jiri, The Constitutional Courts in the New Member States and the Uniform Application of European Law; Giuseppe Martinico, Preliminary Reference and Constitutional Courts: Are You in the Mood for Dialogue?, Tilburg Institute for Comparative and Transnational Law Working Paper (TICOM) 1 (2009).Google Scholar

³ See articles in Part Four of this Special Issue. Google Scholar

⁴ In this article, I will use the terms “Community law” and “EU law” according to their chronology. I use the term EU law for general assessments as well.Google Scholar

⁵ For more information about this, see Európai Közjog és politika [European Public Law and Policy] 775-89 (Tamás Kende &Tamás Szűcs eds., 2006).Google Scholar

⁶ It is disputed whether constitutional amendment was an ultimate necessity for accession. See, e.g., László Kecskés, Az EU-Csatlakozás magyar alkotmányjogi problémái [Constitutional Law Issues of Hungary's Accession to the EU], 51 Magyar Tudomány 1081-82 (2006).Google Scholar

⁷ See Kende & Szűcs, supra note 5, at 769–775 (regarding the interpretation of Article 2/A of the Constitution).Google Scholar

⁸ See Alkotmánybíróság (AB) [Constitutional Court] AK.2012.11.22 (Hung.). The Constitutional court, conducting an abstract interpretation procedure, determined what treaties may fall within the scope of Section E of the Fundamental Law.Google Scholar

⁹ Of the courts of the Member States joining the Union in 2004, only one reference from Malta in 2012 (C–221/09., AJD Tuna, 2011 E.C.R. I–01655) claimed the invalidity of an EU regulation. In this case the CJEU could not identify any points where invalidity could occur. See Réka Somssich, Előzetes döntéshozatali eljárások a számok tükrében—a 2004 óta csatlakozott országok bíróságai által kezdeményezett előzetes döntéshozatali eljárások 10 évvel a csatlakozás után [The Practice of Referring Cases in Member States Joining the Union in 2004 in the Last 10 Years], in A magyar bírósági gyakorlat az előzetes döntéshozatali eljárások kezdeményezésének tükrében 31, 42 (András Osztovits ed., 2014).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Id. at 33. It is also found at the webpage of the Curia (the supreme court of Hungary).Google Scholar

¹¹ For the latest analyses of all relevant decisions of the Hungarian Constitutional Court in English, see Fazekas, Flora, EU Law and Hungarian Constitutional Court, in European Union Law in Hungary: Institutions, Processes and the Law 32–73 (Márton Varju & Ernő Várnay eds., 2014). I will on many occasions use these short analyses in chapter B to highlight the essence of relevant jurisprudence.Google Scholar

¹² For a summary, see Vörös, Imre, Csoportkép Laokoonnal: A magyar jog és az Alkotmánybíróság vívódása az európai joggal [Laocoon Group Photo: The Hungarian Law and Constitutional Adjudication in the Light of European Law] 95–111 (2012).Google Scholar

¹³ Prior to the accession the Constitutional Court analyzed the possibility of limiting sovereignty in the following decisions. See AB AK.1999.11.26; AB AK.2011.2.28; AB AK.2001.1154; AB AK 1998.6.25.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See András Sajó, Learning Co-operative Constitutionalism the Hard Way: The Hungarian Constitutional Court Shying Away from EU Supremacy, 3 Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften 351-70 (2004); Uitz, Renáta, EU Law and the Hungarian Constitutional Court: Lessons of the First Post-Accession Encounter, in Après Enlargement. Legal and Political Responses in Central and Eastern Europe 41–63 (Wojczek Sadurski et al. eds., 2006). In a large number of countries whose relevant constitutional rules are similar, constitutional courts adopted decisions discussing these issues much more exhaustively, e.g. Germany, Italy, Spain, or the Czech Republic. A comparative analysis is given by Flóra Fazekas, A magyar Alkotmánybíróság viszonya a közösségi jog elsőbbségéhez egyes tagállami alkotmánybírósági felfogások tükrében [The Approach of the Hungarian Constitutional Court to the Supremacy of Community Law Compared to the Various Approaches of Other Member States’ Constitutional Courts] 175–81 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Legfelsőbb Bíróság (LB) [Supreme Court] BH 2006.422. Translated by the author.Google Scholar

¹⁶ AB AK 2012.8.22.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Translated by the author.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Fazekas, supra note 14, at 75.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For the elevated importance of the competence of constitutional courts to refer a case to the CJEU, see Martinico, supra note 2, at 4–6.Google Scholar

²⁰ Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court.Google Scholar

²¹ Available at www.mkab.hu/statisztika/2014.Google Scholar

²² AB AK 2004.24.17.Google Scholar

²³ See Fazekas, supra note 11, at 53.Google Scholar

²⁴ Id. Google Scholar

²⁵ See the case law in more detail in Varju, Marton & Fazekas, Flora, The Reception of European Union Law in Hungary: The Constitutional Court and the Hungarian Judiciary, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1945-84 (2011). A good counter-example for the standpoint of the Hungarian Constitutional Court is of the Austrian Constitutional Court. The 2012 decision of the Austrian Constitutional Court is available in English at http://www.vfgh.gv.at/cms/vfghsite/attachments/9/6/0/CH0006/CMS1353421369433/grundrechtecharta_english_u466-11.pdf.Google Scholar

²⁶ AB AK 2008.61. For the critical analysis of the decision and other relevant decisions, see Márta Dezső & Attila Vincze, Magyar alkotmányosság az európai integrációban [Constitutionality in Hungary Within the Framework of European Integration (2012)].Google Scholar

²⁷ AB AK 2007.281; AB AK 2005.770.Google Scholar

²⁸ The Court referred to Case C–166/73, Rheinmühlen, 1974 E.C.R. 33.Google Scholar

²⁹ See the critical analyses of this case and of other relevant case law in detail in Fazekas, supra note 14, at 32–73.Google Scholar

³⁰ AB AK 2010.12.142.Google Scholar

³¹ See Fazekas, supra note 14, at 75.Google Scholar

³² Dissenting opinion of Judge Laszló Kiss, I Chapter.Google Scholar

³³ AB AK 2008.12.32.Google Scholar

³⁴ See the analyses of the decision in Péter Kovács, A la recherche du bon chemin… - ou l'affaire du mandat d'arrět européen devant la Cour constitutionnelle, in La France, l'Europe et le Monde 363–79 (Jean-Denis Mouton ed., 2008).Google Scholar

³⁵ See Fazekas, supra note 11, at 56.Google Scholar

³⁶ AB AK 2004.744.Google Scholar

³⁷ A late exception could be AB AK 2012.4.32 (regarding the constitutionality of student contracts where the Constitutional Court made efforts to reach a consistent interpretation of EU law and domestic measures).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Fazekas, supra note 11, at 59.Google Scholar

³⁹ AB AK.2010.14.143.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Section IV.2.5 of the Decision.Google Scholar

⁴¹ László Blutman, Reagálás az első szám vitaindítójára – A Magyar Lisszabon-határozat: Befejezetlen szimfónia Luxemburgi hangnemben [Reaction to the First Issue's Article That Sparked a Debate—the Hungarian Lisbon Ruling: Unfinished Symphony with a Luxembourgish Tone] 2 Szemle Alkotmánybírósági 90, 98–99 (2010).Google Scholar

⁴² It is worth mentioning that no other constitutional court asked for a preliminary ruling in the case of assessing the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty.Google Scholar

⁴³ The English language press release on the Lisbon Decision contains a reference to the fact that the Court used the theory of acte clair, but the decision itself did not contain this reference. Available at http://alkotmanybirosag.hu/letoltesek/en_0143_2010.pdf.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The official translation is found at the homepage of the Constitutional Court, available at http://www.mkab.hu/letoltesek/en_0022_2012.pdf.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ AB AK 2006.28.66; AB AK 2008.16.87; see also AB AK 2005.61; AB AK 2005.770; AB AK 2011.5.29; AB AK 2005.1053; AB AK 2006.16.72. Cases collected by Fazekas, supra note 14, at 64.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Fazekas, supra note 14, at 65.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ AB AK 2003.485.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Fazekas, supra note 11, at 69.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ I refer not only to the significant change in the composition of the Court (every new member of the Court can be linked to the governing FIDESZ party due to the election procedure) but also to the fact that the number of the members of the Constitutional Court was increased from 11 to 15.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Sadurski, Wojciech, Rights Before Courts: A Study of constitutional courts in central-Eastern Europe 146 (2005).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Vörös, Imre, Európai jog-magyar jog: konkurencia vagy koegzisztencia? [EU Law and Hungarian Law: Competition or Coexistence?], 66 Jogtudományi Közlöny 373, 396-99 (2011).Google Scholar

⁵² Id. at 399.Google Scholar

⁵³ Jakab, András, A Magyar jogrendszer szerkezete [The Structure of the Hungarian Legal System] 236 (2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The new challenge is the application of Art. 4(2) TFEU concerning the respect of the constitutional identity of Member States. See, e.g., Giuseppe Martinico, What Lies Behind Article 4.2 TEU?, in National constitutional identity and European integration 93–108 (Salz Arnaiz & C. Alcoberro Livina eds., 2013). The development of this discourse will certainly have an effect related to the role of constitutional courts.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Jakab, supra note 53, at 249.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Sonnevend, Pál, Alapvető jogaink a csatlakozás után [Our Fundamental Rights after the Accession], 7 Fundamentum 27–37 (2003).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ernő Várnay, Az Alkotmánybíróság és az Európai Unió joga [The Constitutional Court and the Law of the European Union], 62 Jogtudományi Közlöny 428, 432 (2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Id. at 432.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Nóra Chronowski and Zoltán Nemessányi, Alkotmánybíróság-Európai Bíróság: felületi feszültség [Constitutional Court vs. the European Court of Justice: Surface Tension], 4 Európai Jog 19, 27 (2004).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Most cases are connected with the effectiveness of the decision-making process and fair procedure and fair treatment from the officer's side. Zsófia Varga, Az alapjogi Charta a magyar bíróságok előtt. The Charter of Fundamental Rights before the Hungarian Courts] 68 Jogtudományi Közlöny 553-62 (2013)Google Scholar

⁶¹ Somssich, supra note 9, at 31.Google Scholar

⁶² Fazekas, supra note 14, at 349.Google Scholar