1 See Gábor Attila Tóth, Túl a szövegen, Értekezés a magyar alkotmányról [Beyond the Text: An Essay on the Hungarian Constitution] (2009), where I argued that interpretive sources—e.g., the text of the Constitution, original intent of the framers, traditional meaning of the text, precedents, comparative law, and dogmatics—offer interpretive alternatives at most, but do not provide justices with right answers. I believe that with the help of a moral reading, justices may find the best interpretation of constitutional norms, including not only substantive, but also procedural rules.Google Scholar

2 Kovács, Kriszta & Gábor Attila Tóth, Hungary's Constitutional Transformation, 7 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 183 (2011).Google Scholar

3 Dürr, Schnutz Rudolf, Comparative Overview of European Systems of Constitutional Justice, 5 Vienna J. Int'l Const. L. 159, 163 (2011).Google Scholar

4 McBride, Jeremy, The Necessity Test in the Jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, in The Constitution Found? The First Nine Years of Hungarian Constitutional Review on Fundamental Rights 118 (Gábor Halmai et al. eds., 2000).Google Scholar

5 See Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Oct. 24, 1990, 1990 ABH 88; S v. Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (S. Afr.).Google Scholar

6 For a critical view, see Renáta Uitz, Aiming for State Neutrality in Matters of Religion, The Hungarian Record, 83 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 761 (2006).Google Scholar

7 Kriszta Kovács, László Trócsányi & Gábor Attila Tóth, Fundamental Rights in the Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, in Twenty Years of the Hungarian Constitutional Court 41 (Péter Paczolay ed., 2009).Google Scholar

8 See Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] May 18, 1992, 1992 ABH 167; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] June 21, 1994, 1994 ABH 219; New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). See also László Sólyom, Zum Geleit zu den Entscheidungen des Verfassungsgerichts der Republik Ungarn, in Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Ungarn (Georg Brunner & László Sólyom eds., 1995); András Sajó, Hate Speech for Hostile Hungarians, 3 E. Eur. Const. Rev. 82, 84–87 (1994).Google Scholar

9 Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Sept. 26, 1991, 1991 ABH 246.Google Scholar

10 Comparative Constitutionalism: Cases and Materials 310 (Norman Dorsen et al. eds., 2d ed. 2010).Google Scholar

11 Kovács, Kriszta, Think Positive: Preferential Treatment in Hungary 5 Fundamentum 46, 54–57 (2008).Google Scholar

12 Gábor Attila Tóth, Unequal Protection: Historical Churches and Roma People in the Hungarian Constitutional Jurisprudence, 51 Acta Juridica Hungarica 122 (2010).Google Scholar

13 László Sólyom, Pártok és érdekszervezetek az alkotmányban [Parties and Interest Groups in the Constitution] 8 (2004).Google Scholar

14 Twenty Years of the Hungarian Constitutional Court 23 (Péter Paczolay ed., 2009).Google Scholar

15 Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] May 18, 1992, 1992 ABH 167.Google Scholar

16 Id.; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 400/51, 7 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 198 (Jan. 15, 1958) (Ger.).Google Scholar

17 Dupré, Catherine, Importing the Law in Post-Communist Transitions: The Hungarian Constitutional Court and the Right to Human Dignity 65 (2003).Google Scholar

18 See Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Apr. 17, 1990, 1990 ABH 42; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 253/56, 6 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 32 (Jan. 16, 1957) (Ger.); Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Nov. 5, 1991, 1991 ABH 272; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvL 17/87, 79 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 256 (Jan. 31, 1989) (Ger.); Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Dec. 18, 1995, 1995 ABH 376; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 690/65, 28 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 191 (Apr. 28, 1970) (Ger.).Google Scholar

19 See Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Apr. 9, 1991, 1991 ABH 40; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 209/83, 65 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 1 (Dec. 15, 1983) (Ger.).Google Scholar

20 See Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Dec. 21, 1993, 1993 ABH 373; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvL 5/80, 69 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 272 (July 16, 1985) (Ger.); See Pál Sonnevend, Eigentumsschutz und Sozialversicherung: Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse anhand der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und des ungarischen Verfassungsgerichts (2007). For a critical view, see András Sajó, How the Rule of Law Killed Welfare Reform, 3 E. Eur. Const. Rev. 31 (1996).Google Scholar

21 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvL 43/92, 90 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 145, 146 (March 9, 1994) (Ger.).Google Scholar

22 Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Dec. 13, 2004, 2004 ABH 690.Google Scholar

23 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvL 43/92, 105 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] 313 (July 17, 2002) (Ger.)Google Scholar

24 Id. ¶ 98.Google Scholar

25 Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Dec. 15, 2008, 2008 ABH 1203.Google Scholar

26 Id. Google Scholar

27 See, e.g., Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Nov. 18, 1998, 1998 ABH 333; Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] May 8, 2000, 2000 ABH 61; Alkotmánybíróság [AB -Hungarian Constitutional Court] Apr. 22, 2008, 2008 ABH 514.Google Scholar

28 For a comparative study, see Constitutional Justice, East and West, Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective (Wojciech Sadurski ed., 2002).Google Scholar

29 Kovács & Tóth, supra note 2, at 193.Google Scholar

30 Alkotmánybíróság [AB - Hungarian Constitutional Court] Oct. 26, 2010, 2010 ABH 900.Google Scholar

31 Draft Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) on the Three Legal Questions Arising in the Process of Drafting the New Constitution of Hungary, CDL (2011) 016, ¶ 10 (Mar. 17, 2011) [hereinafter Draft Opinion of the European Commission].Google Scholar

32 Miklós Bánkuti, Gábor Halmai & Scheppele, Kim Lane, From Separation of Powers to a Government without Checks: Hungary's Old and New Constitutions, in Constitution for a Disunited Nation: On Hungary's 2011 Fundamental Law 255 (Gábor Attila Tóth ed., 2012).Google Scholar

33 A Magyar Köztársaság Alkotmánya [Constitution of the Republic of Hungary] Art. 24(4), (Apr. 25, 2011), available at http://mkab.hu/rules/fundamental-law.Google Scholar

34 Kovács, Kriszta & Gábor Attila Tóth, Aufstieg und Krise: Wirkung der deutschen Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit auf Ungarn, in Kampf und Konsens im Verfassungsrecht. Interdisziplinäre und vergleichende Perspektive auf die Rolle und Funktion von Verfassungsgerichten (Christian Boulanger, Uwe Kranenpohl & Michael Wrase eds., forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

35 A Magyar Köztársaság Alkotmánya [Constitution of the Republic of Hungary] Art. 37(4), (Apr. 25, 2011), available at http://mkab.hu/rules/fundamental-law.Google Scholar

36 For more on this, see Christian Boulanger & Oliver W. Lembcke, Between Revolution and Constitution: The Roles of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in Constitution for a Disunited Nation: On Hungary's 2011 Fundamental Law 279 (Gábor Attila Tóth ed., 2012); Kovács & Tóth, supra note 2.Google Scholar

37 A Magyar Köztársaság Alkotmánya [Constitution of the Republic of Hungary] Art. R(3), (Apr. 25, 2011), available at http://mkab.hu/rules/fundamental-law.Google Scholar

38 See A Magyar Köztársaság Alkotmánya [Constitution of the Republic of Hungary]; The Fundamental Law of Hungary Avowal of National Faith (Apr. 25, 2011), available at http://mkab.hu/rules/fundamental-law (“We are proud that our people have fought in defense of Europe over the centuries and, through their talent and industry, have enriched Europe's common values.”).Google Scholar

39 Draft Opinion of the European Commission, supra note 31, ¶ 28.Google Scholar

40 For rival readings of the National Avowal and the holy crown doctrine, see Ferenc Horkay-Hörcher, The National Avowal, in The Basic Law of Hungary: A First Commentary 25–45 (Lóránt Csink, Balázs Schanda & András Zs. Varga eds., 2012); Sándor Radnóti, A Sacred Symbol in a Secular Country: The Holy Crown, in Constitution for a Disunited Nation: On Hungary's 2011 Fundamental Law 85–110 (Gábor Attila Tóth ed., 2012).Google Scholar

41 A Magyar Köztársaság Alkotmánya [Constitution of the Republic of Hungary] Art. R(3), (Apr. 25, 2011), available at http://mkab.hu/rules/fundamental-law.Google Scholar

42 For a comparative study, see Liav Orgad, The Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation, 8 Int'l J. Const. L. 714 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Fleck, Zoltán, et al., Opinion on the Fundamental Law of Hungary pt. 3, ¶ 4 (Andrew Arato, Gábor Halmai & János Kis eds., 2011), available at http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/amicus-to-vc-english-final.pdf.Google Scholar

44 Scheppele, Kim Lane, On the Unconstitutionality of Constitutional Change: An Essay in Honor of László Sólyom, in Liber Amicorum in Honor of László Sólyom, 286–310 (Zoltán Csehi, Balázs Schanda, Pál Sonnevend eds., 2012).Google Scholar

45 Gladly enough, in one case, the HCC interpretation of the “historical constitution” was different from the original aims of the government. The HCC declared that the principle of judicial irremovability is long-standing in Hungarian law, pointing out that judicial protection from arbitrary dismissal had long been guaranteed, starting with the first judiciary act of 1869. See Alkotmánybíróság (AB) [Constitutional Court] July 16, 2012, AK.2012.33.17 (Hung.). See also Kim Lane Scheppele, How to Evade the Constitution: The Hungarian Constitutional Court's Decision on Judicial Retirement Age Part I, Verfassungsblog (Aug. 9, 2012), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/de/how-to-evade-the-constitution-the-hungarian-constitutional-courts-decision-on-judicial-retirement-age-part-i/#.UcuaGDYo4ic/.Google Scholar

46 The text of the present article has been finalized before the adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, which invalidated all decisions of the HCC which were brought before the Fundamental Law came into force. This Amendment seems to confirm the thesis of this paper.Google Scholar