ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE DES HAUTES JURIDICTIONS ADMINISTRATIVES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTIONS Presentation form Name of the Court: Curia of Hungary Name of the President/Chief Justice: Dr. Péter Darák Address: Markó utca 16, 1055 Budapest, Hungary Phone number : (+36-1)-268-4500 Fax: (+36-1)-268-4740 Website: http://lb.hu E-mail: [email protected] 1. NATIONAL JUDICIAL ORGANISATION 1.1. General presentation of the judicial organisation and position of the administrative jurisdictional order In Hungary, justice is administered by the Curia of Hungary, the regional appellate courts, the high courts, the district courts, as well as the administrative and labour courts. The court system is presented by the graph hereunder: Association internationale des hautes juridictions administratives (A.I.H.J.A.) / International Association of Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions (I.A.S.A.J.) Conseil d’Etat – Place du Palais Royal – 75100 Paris cedex 01 – France Téléphone / Phone : (+33) 1 40 20 80 11 – Télécopie / Fax. : (+33) 1 40 20 81 34 Courriel / Email : [email protected] – Site internet / Website : www.aihja.org / www.iasaj.org Banque / Bank : HSBC FR PALAIS ROYAL – 3 place André Malraux – 75001 Paris IBAN : FR76 3005 6000 4500 4554 1130 225 – BIC : CCFRFRPP 1. The Curia of Hungary is at the top of the judicial hierarchy. The Curia guarantees the uniform application of law, its uniformity decisions are binding on all other courts of the country. The Curia a) examines appeals submitted against the decisions of the high courts and the regional appellate courts in cases defined by law, b) reviews final decisions if they are challenged through an extraordinary remedy, c) adopts uniformity decisions which are binding on all other courts, d) analyses final decisions to examine and explore the courts’ practice, e) publishes decisions and rulings of principle, f) passes decisions in cases where local government decrees violate legal rules, and g) passes decisions in cases where the local government fails to legislate as laid down in the Act on Local Governments. At the Curia, adjudicating, uniformity, municipality and publication panels operate within three different departments (criminal, civil as well as administrative and labour), in addition, jurisprudence-analysing working groups may be set up. 2. There are five regional appellate courts between the level of the high courts and that of the Curia. Appeals may be lodged against the decisions of the high courts with the regional appellate courts. The latter may also act as a court of third instance in criminal cases in which the second instance decision was rendered by a high court. At the regional appellate courts, adjudicating panels operate within one of their two departments (criminal and civil). Regional appellate courts, on the other hand, are not entitled to hear administrative cases. 3. The high courts may act either as first or as second instance courts, depending on the relevant pieces of procedural legislation. At the high courts, adjudicating panels and groups operate within four different departments (criminal, civil, economic as well as administrative and labour). As of 1 January 2018, the High Court of Budapest shall have exclusive competence and territorial jurisdiction over first and second instance cases which would otherwise fall within the high courts’ competence. 4/a. There are altogether 112 district courts (106 in the countryside and 6 in the 23 districts of the capital city of Budapest) in Hungary. District courts act as courts of first instance in civil and criminal cases. 4/b. In Hungary, there are 20 administrative and labour courts which act as courts of first instance in administrative and labour disputes. As of 1 January 2018, the majority of new cases are to be dealt with by eight regional administrative and labour courts. The latter are entrusted with the tasks of reviewing the legality of administrative decisions and providing legal protection against those actions and omissions of the administrative bodies which have as their object or effect the change of the legal status of the person bringing an action to court. 1.2. Key dates in the evolution of the administrative jurisdictional order and the control of administrative acts 1. Act no. XXVI of 1896: establishment of the Royal Administrative Court of Hungary – a court with organisational independence and general competence. 2. Act no. II of 1949: dissolution of the Royal Administrative Court of Hungary. 3. Act no. IV of 1957 on the General Rules of Administrative Proceedings: it made it possible, under exceptional circumstances, to request the court review of a limited range of administrative decisions. 4. As of the year 1973, the court review of administrative decisions had been regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure (Chapter XX of Law Decree no. 26 of 1972): the courts’ competence had been expanded to enable them to review the legality of administrative decisions both in litigious and non-litigious proceedings. 2 5. Act no. I of 1981: it gave citizens the right to request the courts to review administrative decisions in the event of infringements committed by the authorities (violations of the citizens’ constitutional rights and other fundamental personal, family and pecuniary rights). The scope of administrative decisions susceptible to court review was defined by Council of Ministers Decree no. 63/1980 of 5 December 1980. 6. 23 October 1989: modification of Act no. XX of 1949 on the Constitution of the Republic of Hungary. According to its modified section 50, subsection (2), the courts shall review the legality of administrative decisions. 7. Act no. XXVI of 1991 on the Extension of the Possibility of the Court Review of Administrative Decisions: it aimed at implementing the provisions of section 50, subsection (2) of the Constitution, but did not result in the establishment of a separate system of administrative justice (no independent administrative courts, no separate code of administrative litigation, the rules of administrative court proceedings were set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure). 8. Act no. CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of the Courts of Hungary: administrative and labour courts were established within a single judicial system. 9. 1 January 2018: entry into force of Act no. I of 2017 on the Code of Administrative Litigation – a separate procedural code to regulate administrative court proceedings (instead of some specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure). 10. 6 November 2018: submission of Bill no. T/3353 on Administrative Courts and Bill no. T/3354 on Some Transitional Arrangements Related Thereto; the aforementioned bills aim at setting up a separate system of administrative justice with the introduction of administrative high courts and the Higher Administrative Court. 1.3. Criteria of competence of the administrative jurisdiction A legal action for the court review of an administrative decision may be brought before an administrative court. The term “administrative decision” includes the followings: any decision rendered by an administrative authority or by the head of such authority in an administrative action, any ruling for ordering enforcement in the event of any breach of an obligation contained in an administrative agreement, any decision adopted by a local government as specified by law, as well as any other decision susceptible to court review as specified by law. Administrative decisions may be reviewed before court under the following cumulative statutory conditions: - the impugned decision is (allegedly) unlawful, - the party has exhausted all legal remedies within the system of administrative authorities, and - the decision’s court review is not excluded by law. Unlawfulness means any violation of substantive or procedural legal provisions. An administrative decision is deemed unlawful if it does not comply substantially with the applicable pieces of legislation, if it has been delivered on the basis of the wrong legal provisions, or if the applicable pieces of legislation have been misinterpreted. An administrative decision that has been rendered in violation of the procedural requirements may be reviewed before court only if the procedural infringement has been significant and has affected the very substance of the administrative decision. A decision cannot qualify as an administrative decision rendered in an administrative law relationship if there is no hierarchical order, but a civil law based interdependence (e.g. the administrative body acts as an owner) between the parties. In the latter case, such decision may not be subject to court review by an administrative court. Similarly, the administrative courts have no competence to review the administrative authority’s actions related to employment and service relationships. 3 2. ORGANISATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTIONAL ORDER 2.1. Key founding texts 1. Procedural rules: – Chapter XX of Act no. III of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure (as regards cases launched no later than 31 December 2017) – Chapter IV of Act no. CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of the Courts of Hungary (in respect of cases – to be dealt with by the Curia’s municipality panel – launched no later than 31 December 2017 where local government decrees violate legal rules, and where the local government fails to legislate as laid down in the Act on Local Governments) – Act no. I of 2017 on the Code of Administrative Litigation (as regards cases launched on or after 1 January 2018) 2. Provisions on the organisation and administration of the courts and on the determination of their territorial competence: – Act no. CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of the Courts of Hungary – in respect of the establishment of a separate system of administrative justice: Bill no. T/3353 on Administrative Courts and Bill no. T/3354 on the Entry into Force of the Administrative Courts Act and on Some Transitional Arrangements Related Thereto – Act no. CLXXXIV of 2010 on the Name and Seat of the Courts and on the Determination of Their Territorial Competence 3.