Collection of Student Papers Onhungarian Andcroatian Legal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
II I I SIC Y BÓD I A ć I IZN ELY GOSZTON ELY A BEL G rela Kreš I ING EDITORS GER M K ITURCollection of student papers on Hungarian and Croatian AD legal history 2017 ASTRA ISBN 978-953-270-116-6 I I SIC Y BÓD I A ć I IZN ELY GOSZTON ELY A BEL G rela Kreš I ING EDITORS GER M K ITURCollection of student papers on Hungarian and Croatian AD legal history 2017 AUniversity of ZagrebST / Faculty of Law / Chair of CroatianRA History of Law and State / 2018 Table of content Croatian–Hungarian Legal History Summer School .............................................................................. 2 András SZABÓ: The regulation of the exceptional power ................................................................... 3 Matija PLAŠĆ: Constitutionality in the first Yugoslavia (1918–1941) .............................................. 9 Rita ANGELI: “Open and close” – The final points of the educational politics during the dualism ................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Mateo VLAČIĆ: Citizenship in communist Croatia (1945–1990) ..................................................... 23 Patrik SZABÓ: Women’s suffrage in Hungary and abroad ................................................................ 31 Martina PROTEGA: Political rights and freedoms in the Banovina of Croatia ............................ 43 Lilla BARTUSZEK: The beautiful Budapest – The formation and participation of the capital in the system of state administration ............................................................................................................ 50 Darija ŽELJKO: Heimatrecht in Croatia–Slavonia (1868–1918) ......................................................... 57 Gréta ZANÓCZ: The history of centralization and decentralization in Hungary especially in the civil era .......................................................................................................................................................... 63 Ana TURIĆ: Constitutional position of Croatia in the federal and republic constitution of 1974 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 70 Adelheid NAGY: The role and significance of the “Press Code of '48” in the Hungarian regulation of Press Law .................................................................................................................................. 78 Alen ŠUKURICA: Constitutional position of Croatia–Slavonia according to the Croatian– Hungarian Compromise ................................................................................................................................ 83 Luca VARGA: The comparison of the Croatian and Hungarian public administration after the Compromise ....................................................................................................................................................... 89 Ingrid RÁK–RADI: Voices of the Croatian nation in the Hungarian parliament ......................... 94 Croatian–Hungarian Legal History Summer School The Croatian–Hungarian Legal History Summer School was organised for the first time in 2016 in Budapest as a result of the cooperation of the Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law and the University of Zagreb Faculty of Law. The two History of State and Law Departments of these universities published the best student presentations in the book entitled Sic itur ad astra I. (ISBN 978-963-284-935-5, Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law, Budapest, 2017, 64 p.). Our second summer school was held in Zagreb in 2017. The topic was “Croatian and Hungarian Public Administration and Constitutional History 1848-1991’. Fourteen students (from the Master and Ph.D. level) held their presentations, all of them are listed in this book. We hope that our students will actually reach the stars and that we will find their names and scientific achievements in similar publications in the future as well. Zagreb–Budapest, 2018. The Editors 2 András SZABÓ: The regulation of the exceptional power Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Law 1. Definition In my work, I intend to introduce a part of exceptional power’s history in Hungary. In the period between the 1848–1849 Revolution and World War II the legal institution’s content has gone through changes because the government got more and more authority. Before I introduce the history of exceptional power, I would like to give its definition: usually by constitution or separate act ensured right of the government, in order to ensure the inner safety in special occasions, it can manage with edicts the legislation’s case, moreover it can narrow the individual rights with it.1 2. History of exceptional power The exceptional power, as a legal institution was created with the Act accepted in 1912. Its content was used in other periods of history of law. The martial law was the same in the 16th century. In this age the deputy-lieutenant travelled around the country with servant judges in order to enforce the law and to resettle the piece in the territory of the country.2 Usually opportunity of martial law was made for the situation, when in the country the disorder was typical. This ensured the background of the breaking-down of the outlaws and of the serfs’ movement in the 18–19th centuries.3 A royal rescript was also about the delegation to martial law which had a justification about why they established these kinds of courts. In the centre of the martial law was the depravation of the public security, which remediation seemed to be impossible with the traditional form of the legislation.4 This rescript’s curiosity was that it was operative until 1852, which means that it had to operate with the Act 1 of 1849 parallel. 1 POMOGYI, László: Magyar alkotmány- és jogtörténeti kéziszótár [Dictionary of the Hungarian Constitutional and Legal History], Budapest, 2008, Mérték Kiadó, p. 603. 2 MEZEY, Barna: A kivételes hatalom jogi természete [About the legal nature of the exceptional power], Jogtörténeti Szemle 2015/4, p. 26. 3 Ibid. p. 27. 4 Ibid. 3 3. Act 1 of 1849 Though the Act 1 of 1849 had not lead the legal institution of exceptional power into Hungary’s legal system, but in its content could be found the martial laws rules, which appeared in the Act 63 of 1912 too. The Act 1 of 1849 delegated the civil and the criminal jurisdiction to courts that was established by the Országos Honvédelmi Bizottmány [National Defence Committee], what led the country as a government in this stand of the revolution. This delegation had narrows: they were allowed to use this power only on that part of the country which were war zones and were important in favour of the revolution. These courts stood out of five people and its competency included civilians and soldiers too. Regarding the judges there were criteria: in a council had to be two civilian judges and two military judges. The leader of them could come out of both social groups. The prosecutor was represented by the Országos Honvédelmi Bizottmány. The Act regulated the crimes which could have been judged by martial law. For example: armed action against the country or made someone do this, helping the enemy and obstructing the army. The members of the parliament had immunity and this was only suspended if they had not found any other opportunity. If someone was caught in act anyone could capture him or her, but he or she had to be given immediately to the civil or military authority. After the capture he or she had to be brought to justice in twenty-four hours. One of the five judges wrote the record. The defendant could have a defence attorney. If he or she had not a lawyer, the court allocated one for the criminal. The process could be suspended in order to let the defendant get evidence in his or her defence. To adjudicate the five judges had to share the same opinion by sentencing the defendant or releasing him or her. If they had an agreement and sentenced the defendant that meant a sentence to death, which was executed by bullet. If the judges were unable to sentence the defendant or release him or her, he or she was given to the ordinary court. By sentencing to death, the execution had to be done in the next three hours counted from the sentence. The whole process, with the execution had to last less than three days. 4 4. Act 63 of 1912 The first act that was made about the exceptional power after the Austro–Hungarian Compromise was the Act 63 of 1912. Before this, Austria tried to institute a similar institution, but the Hungarians did not accept it, because the military leader would have taken over the force, over the civilian leaders during the war or during the threatening of war.5 In the background stood that its acceptation would have been against the acts of 1848 because the exceptional power could have been delegated only to the government.6 This act was known also by another name: the delegation act. The legal institution of exceptional power was not defined by it. It only listed the right of the government during war or during threatening of war. The reason of this act was that the exceptional power had been only interpretable with the interest of the state but after the statute was made the politician were able to refer to an act. This means that it had expediency and constitutional backgrounds.7 After the war, the government that lived with the opportunities ensured by the