[ad_1]
On October 9, the National Council of Judges (OBT) did not support the election of Zs. András Varga as president of the Curia on October 13. Did you have the vote in favor?
There was a high-quality and cultured discussion in the deliberations about the aspects that the board wanted to consider to support the candidate. A consistent summary of these aspects is included in the explanatory memorandum for the decision. Pros and cons were made.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that the Council of the Judiciary held the candidate responsible for his judicial record, his judicial and judicial practice.
However, the audience convinced everyone of the candidate’s personal qualities. I note that the minutes of the OBT meeting and the result of the roll call vote are also public.
That is, the unwritten rules of collegiality are confirmed in the protocol. True?
My answer is what I just said.
Let’s go back a few years in time! One of the main tasks of the Mansion is to ensure unity of judicial enforcement. Following his election as president, the most critical areas of jurisprudence (sentencing practices, disclosure of data of public interest, right of assembly, etc.) were examined by so-called jurisprudence analysis groups. With what result?
In recent years, we have been able to map almost every problem area in the law. Between 2012 and 2019, fifty-seven jurisprudence analysis groups operated in the Curia. When I visit a district court and ask the judges which activities of the Curia are being monitored the most, they mainly mention the summarized opinions of the jurisprudence analysis groups. This can be explained by the fact that judicial work focuses on individual cases, while the judge seeks to raise his knowledge to a more general level to understand a particular issue. Analyzes help to do this.
None of them were used by legislators. For example, the main conclusions of the analysis “Expert evidence in judicial proceedings” were incorporated into the Law of Judicial Experts of 2016.
So is. Furthermore, the analyzes also guide jurisprudence in specific cases. When we looked at the sentencing issues, the Curia published a case-by-case decision that the seriousness of the crime should also be taken into account in a court decision on parole. And lo and behold, recently, Parliament passed a law that already excludes parole for the most serious crimes. But we also looked at non-compete agreements, which is a whole new area: Companies stipulate to their employees that they cannot work the same job for a specified period of time if they leave. It turned out that under the law at the time, these agreements did not have to be in writing, whereas a study contract could only be concluded in writing. At the Mansion’s suggestion, this has recently changed.
Can we say that, following the American model, the application of Hungarian law is also moving towards jurisprudence?
There is a great distance between legislation and established jurisprudence.
The jurisprudence analysis bridges this gap by examining legislative intent, but also by looking at its practical implementation and then comparing the two. In Germany, a serious legal culture has developed in this regard, while in Hungary the attention of lawyers has never focused so intensely on the practice of law. European legislation changes this somewhat, since the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union must be constantly monitored.
What do you mean by what you said in an earlier interview that the Mansion is not a judgment factory?
That the emphasis is not on the judgment of the Curia when deciding a particular case, but on whether the decision has a meaning beyond the given case.
A supreme court must have a radiance, a principled logic must prevail in its decisions.
The workshop work on the analyzes definitely changed the basic position of the judges, made them much more open and acceptable towards other methods, different approaches, different aspects.
Even against procedural considerations? What is your relationship with the prosecution?
The dialogue is completely fair and professional. In the exploration of the trial in the service of the oppressive power of the 1950s and 1960s, for example, a particularly harmonious and effective cooperation developed between the court and the prosecution. The joint work revealed that in conceptual trials, relatively few convictions were reviewed by the court at the request of the parties because in the meantime family members had died.
The Parliament modified the regulations, thus allowing the Attorney General to request the Curia to issue a certificate of nullity of convictions for infringement, and in almost fifty cases the Curia also proved the nullity of the process at that time, thus achieving legal satisfaction .
Can the judgments be criticized?
Of course. On the one hand, there is a need for professional feedback, which is what lawyers who act as litigators do. As well as the reactions of the jurisprudence are fundamental. For ten years now, JeMa (Explanation of Lawsuits) magazine has been doing extremely valuable work, analyzing the decisions of, among other things, the supreme courts from a scientific point of view. On the other hand, legal disputes and crimes are brought before the courts, which are of great concern to the citizenry, so it is legal for people to have an opinion on these matters. Courts must accept this and pay attention to how society’s value judgments evolve in a case. However, this does not mean that the judge should adjust to the public mood.
At the same time, it is quite strange when lawyers vehemently agitate in the media about their own ongoing cases, breaking the principle of equality of arms, since the judges cannot comment on anything, especially before passing judgment …
The public also needs to be patient and know that a judge cannot do this. Not because his conviction unfolds definitively when he closes the case and pronounces the verdict. Before that, it would be irresponsible to say anything. If a professional or factual error appears in the press, we usually respond to it in a statement.
Can a judge not speak at all in his own case?
Practically no, not before or after the verdict. Interpretation of sentences is not the task of the judge, but of the court’s press service.
And if politics finds justice, a politician proves the verdict? Or what is even more complicated: anticipate the verdict.
The judge must ignore these opinions when making his decision. And the president of the court draws the attention of the public to the fact that it is not correct to influence judges in their work. However, issues need to be addressed on the spot.
It should be noted that politicians also have their own political perspectives, which may be related to problems. You should not cross a line: when you meet a specific judge and your person is initiated.
Every Hungarian citizen must respect the fact that the judge receives his appointment from the President of the Republic and is instructed to decide the cases before him, to the best of his knowledge and belief, without prejudice. Personalization is incompatible with the rule of law.
According to Péter Hack, head of the department, Péter Darák was one of the best chief judges in the history of Hungarian law, who also supported his colleagues in many anti-government matters. How about this?
It is an honor to see my presidency in this way. Each of those speeches speaks at least as much about the expectations for the next nine years as the evaluation of the previous nine years. We left the trial of my presidential job for posterity.
Mr. President, early next year a new era will begin in your life. Do you already have what it will take care of?
As the tax law books lined up on the table reveal, I will continue to serve here at the Mansion as Chairman of the Board of the College of Public Administration.
Will you leave three envelopes for your successor?
No.
Péter Darák was born in Marcali on June 6, 1963 and his parents are lawyers. He spent his childhood in Zalaegerszeg, graduated from the local Miklós Zrínyi secondary school in 1981 and then obtained his law degree in Pécs in 1987. Writing at the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office in Zalaegerszeg, prosecutor since 1990. Judge in administrative proceedings at the Municipal Court in Zalaegerszeg since 1991, judge of the group since 1997. Judge of the Supreme Court in 1999-2000 and then Judge of the Faculty of Administration since 2000. In 2002 he was appointed judge in the Department of Civil Law of the Ministry of Justice, where he participated in the drafting of the new Civil Code. He obtained his doctorate in 2007 from the doctoral school of the Pécs Faculty of Law. President of the Association of Administrative Judges of Hungary between 2002 and 2012. On the proposal of the Head of State Pál Schmitt, on December 13, 2011, Parliament elected him President of the Curia. His nine-year term expires on December 31, 2020, his successor will be András Zs. Varga, and will return to the School of Public Administration as president of the council from the beginning of next year. He specializes in theoretical and legal issues of financial justice, administrative procedural law, environmental protection and real estate.
(Cover Image: Attila Trenka / Index)
[ad_2]
