[ad_1]
The abolition of the independence of the courts is a long-term process, but also in this the presidency of the Curia of Zsolt András Varga is a “qualitative leap”, Zsuzsa Sándor explains why.
I rarely agree With András Schiffer, but this time it was from my heart when András Zsolt Varga Regarding his presidency of the Curia, he wrote, “now one can start to worry.” Although I think there have been many reasons for concern thus far, this decision really outweighs the previous ones.
Where do I start? With legislation, whose clear objective was the court, subordinate judgment to politics, or present the principles and thought of András Zs. Varga? After all, it hardly matters, as the two are closely related.
Since 2010, Fidesz has strived to shape the pitch in its own image. Although in this endeavor courage failed the government, but, as the current situation shows, it never gave up. It began when the legislature gave the National Judicial Office a power that made it almost impossible for the court, an autonomous body chosen by its own members, the National Council of Judges, to control the administration of the courts. After years of scandals Al Hando Hando he had to leave the bureau chief before a constitutional judge was sculpted. True, the legal opportunity has since been created for Hando to return to court at any time, including as chairman of a council of the curia.
Due to international outrage, the government’s attempt to establish an independent Supreme Administrative Court failed. However, how useful it would have been for Fidesz, through the Minister of Justice, to have a direct influence on decisions related to elections, taxes, demonstrations, municipal affairs, to name just a few.
Despite these partial failures, Fidesz, with its two-thirds parliamentary majority, is not the first time it has passed a personalized law. So it was removed at the time Andras Baka of the Chief of the Supreme Court with the trick of changing the name of the institution to Mansion. Although Baka won a lawsuit in Strasbourg, he was unable to return to the presidency.
True, János Áder (not yet as president of the republic, but as head of Fidesz in charge of transforming the judiciary) argued that Baka did not have five years of judicial practice, but managed to forget that criterion, now as head of state. That is, in principle, even Baka could be the president of the Curia today if he had not reached retirement age in the meantime.
I run the risk that the hidden amendment in various salad laws would serve the very purpose of converting András Zs. Varga as president of the Curia.
To this end, first the influence of the Curia in jurisprudence was strengthened and then, by eliminating the previous conflict of interest, it was possible for a constitutional judge to become a judge at any time at his own request, that is, the president of a council of the curia. At the same time, the minimum five years of judicial exercise required for this function, which at that time was invoked as a ground for exclusion in Baka, was abolished.
Thus, there was no obstacle for the President of the Republic to appoint eight constitutional judges, including András Zs. Varga and five other lawyers who had never been judges, in July of this year.
The head of state only had to take the last small step: nominate Zs. Varga as president of the Curia. The rest goes alone. Despite the fact that the National Council of Judges, which represents some 3,000 judges, strongly opposed Varga’s appointment, also pointing out that the two reforms to the law go against the constitutional expectation of an impartial and independent person from the other powers of the State.
After outlining the legal process that led to the appointment of the future president of the Curia, it is worth getting acquainted with the person concerned and making some of their thoughts public.
András Zs. Varga was born in Târgu Mureş in 1968, graduated from Eötvös Loránd University. In 1995 he was recruited by the Public Ministry, then in 1995-96 in the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner – Polt Péter as an employee, he worked. He later remained one of Polt’s closest employees, in 2000, at just 32 years old, he became Deputy Chief Prosecutor for six years, and then in 2010 Paul Schmitt again he was appointed Polt’s deputy. His term lasted until 2013. When Polt was not the chief prosecutor, Zs. Varga also left the prosecution and later returned to him. However, at his current hearing before the Justice Committee, Zs. Varga stated:
There is no doubt that this past employment relationship has left a greater mark than any of my other employment relationships.
Varga has been a university professor and department head since 2012, as well as a faith teacher and pastor.
While József Szájer András Zs. Varga considered that only a “central constitution” should be
it does not decide on the most important questions of the form of government and the form of government, but contains a preamble and a set of constitutional principles that tolerate the result of legitimacy unchanged (restoration of the Apostolic Kingdom to the rights of the legitimate dynasty) through the royal free election to the final republican form. (…) It ensures continuity with the millenary Hungarian constitutionality (that is, the reference to the Holy Crown should allow a subsequent elaboration of a modernized Holy Crown Doctrine) and effectively guarantees freedom of religion by relying not on a pseudo -leaked neutrality but on the Trianon Commemorative Law. similarly, it provides a place for Creator God.
This constitution, he continued, “prefers marriage and the family based on it as a natural right of man and woman over all other” forms, “” and Zs. Varga would have held an exceptional referendum and rehabilitated natural law or a set of general principles of law that can be deduced from reason and that prevail over current law).
Of course, we could say that Zs. Varga thought all this ten years ago, in the “delusion of constitutionality”, today he sees many things differently. But this is not the case. In relation to the draft law of the Supreme Administrative Court, which finally ruled in 2019, a MandinerHe reiterated:
whether it is a king, president or governor who personifies this central power, there is not that much difference in this. (…) The monarchy, therefore, is not a matter to fear.
Really, why should you be afraid of the monarchy? After all, the Curia (Supreme Court) has had a total of 23 presidents so far, and only four of them have no prior judicial practice. Two of these four Franz Joseph set. Right, the other two Mátyás Rákosi.
Zs. Varga will be fifth in this round.
Happy david, the director of Amnesty International Hungary considered it absurd in a radio conversation that András Zs. Varga, who never performed judicial functions, assumed the presidency of the Curia despite the decision to reject the National Council of the Judiciary, which represents three thousand judges. But why give up this ambition when you have a mature vision of judicial self-government in general?
In short, it can be said that certain European institutions, including the Venice Commission in the first place, have fallen in love with judicial, judicial and judicial councils in recent decades. Judicial committees actually carry more dangers than they do. Nowhere in the countries I have experimented do they work to the satisfaction of the public. They have a “benefit”: they politicize the courts.
-Based on the testimony of the aforementioned Mandiner interview, according to Varga, it is not the person of the president appointed by politics and recruited outside the Curia which would mean politicizing the court, but the self-government of the judges.
We must not forget that, according to Varga, “all judges must pay attention to people’s sense of justice, it is a matter of conscience that if many people say that a trial is wrong, it must be good.” But this could never have been a consideration for a practicing judge. As far as I know, the law, the evidence, and the conscience of the judge alone can decide which judgment to take. When a decision is made under public pressure, it has always been a problem. See the massacre at the Bank of Mór, where, in that case at least, innocent defendants were convicted and the real perpetrators came to light only years later. The true judicial approach is well reflected in the late Supreme Court judge, To György Pálinkás your response to a prosecutor’s comment. According to this, the prosecutor said in a trial that “someone must be held accountable for this terrible crime.” However, Pálinkás corrected:
It is not someone who has to answer, but the sinner.
Zoltán Fleck The sociologist draws attention to the fact that Zs. Varga, as president of the Curia, can determine the order of distribution of cases and will also play an important role in the selection of judges for the Curia. judges are placed on the basis of their political loyalty. Also, how do you do it Péter Bárándy The former justice minister noted: If impartiality and independence were to weaken in the Curia, it would leak to the district court level in a matter of moments. And this means that everyone who attends or goes to court is directly affected by the personality and political loyalty of the President of the Curia.
Bárándy also mentions the studies of Zs. András Varga on courts. In these, the author explained that the judge swears by the Basic Law and, as such, does not swear by his independence and conscience, but by the service of the State.
However, this idea is nothing more than a denial of the essence of judicial existence.
Therefore, one of the three “independent” branches of power will become quite slow. Viktor Orban, who has run government and parliament in one person for some time, can now get his hands on the courts through his old and faithful.
Highlighted: Zsolt András Varga, candidate for the presidency of the Curia, at the meeting of the Judicial Commission of Parliament. In the pulpit, Imre Vejkey, vice chairman of the KDNP committee. Photo: Tibor Illyés / MTI
[ad_2]
