The Magical Nokia-box - part 20.

Why is the Nokia-box still talked about?

It seems to be that a part of the leading politicians ignore the fact that Balogh unsaid his testimony. The parties are still referring to the Nokia-box in front of the public. They must have some interest in doing so, since they are continuously trying to put either each other or the MSZP in an awkward position with it.

Did they attempt to raise the issue again closer to the campaign period?

As they did it before in 2010 during the parliamentary elections period and later the municipal elections period they raised the issue of the nokia box during the campaign period of the elections in 2014. The timing was planned well in advance: at the beginning of 2012 at the press conference following the reassignment of the suit to Kecskemét it was announced that the firs-instance verdict will be delivered in the peak of the campaign period, 2014.

Hungary, An Election in Question, Part 5

This is the final post of a new series from my Princeton colleague Kim Lane Scheppele, head of Princeton’s Law and Public Affairs Program.

Hungary: An Election in Question
Part V: The Unequal Campaign
Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton
24 February 2014

Kim Lane Scheppele

Officially, the election campaign in Hungary starts 50 days before an election, so the race began in earnest on 15 February for the 6 April election. Once the campaign period starts in Hungary, special rules ensure that all parties are treated equally.

But as Anatole France once said, “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.”

We’ve already seen how the new system in Hungary was designed to push opposition parties into an uncomfortable alliance and to require they win by a substantial margin to win at all. And we’ve seen how the system of minority and foreign voting has opened the doors for Fidesz voters while closing them to those who would vote for opposition parties.

Not surprisingly, the rules for the campaign period itself also have a similar logic.

How Did Hungary’s Election Become a Circus?

By DANNY HAKIMMARCH 1, 2014


BUDAPEST — THE most visible poster on the streets here is not the one advertising the Deep Purple concert at the Papp Laszlo Sportarena. And it’s not the one for “Balkan Kobra,” a theatrical comedy featuring a stubbly hero sporting tight jeans and a Kalashnikov. And it’s definitely not the one for the Budapest Dance Festival.

Instead, it’s the one that shows three or four guys wearing neckties standing in a police lineup, alongside a clown. In one of the more ubiquitous versions of the poster, two of the men are former left-wing prime ministers of Hungary. A third is Attila Mesterhazy, president of the country’s Socialist Party and a current candidate for prime minister in the coming election in April. The fourth is Miklos Hagyo, the former left-wing deputy mayor of Budapest, who is currently the subject of a corruption trial.



An ad from a pro-ruling-party group features opposition politicians, a clown and the tag line “They Don’t Deserve Another Chance.” Credit Akos Stiller for The New York Times

The men, and the clown, appear above the slogan “They Don’t Deserve Another Chance.”

Given that political advertising has been sharply and abruptly curtailed by Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his ruling Fidesz Party, the pre-eminence of a political ad — on billboards, lampposts and the sides of buses — might seem surprising. But Fidesz, which has been widely criticized as taking Hungary in an autocratic direction since taking power in 2010, has become adept at controlling the message. It has rewritten the state’s Constitution, come to dominate all branches of government and held increasing sway over the news media. Meanwhile, according to the International Monetary Fund, Hungary’s economic output is not expected to return to 2008 levels until 2017.

Civil Unity Forum (CÖF) – flyer for almost 40 million

The smear „clown” campaign against the leaders of the opposition united leaders can be even 100 million forint for the CÖF-CÖKA organization which organized the Peace Marches. For the first wave the country was infested with huge billboards, and on the last week they started to spread their 16 pages colored publication in 4 million copies. 

This is shows the opposition leaders in the clown composition which is well known from the billboards. The cost of the campaign is covert by the CÖF-CÖKA. As they still debtor with the cost of the „They ruined the country together” action in the end of 2012 which is focused on Gyurcsány and Bajnai.




Lot of people march with the CÖF, but the supporter is little  PICTURE: ISTVÁN BIELIK


Because in the name of the „civilian” László Csizmadia answered to our paper for the question about their present cost he answered that „we don’t declare in this cases because we said it more times that we are settling and we can be settle”, the Népszava tried to guess the costs for the campaign books. It made us harder that the Hungarian Post Office Ltd. didn’t want to tell us the cost of the spread.

On their website according to their official rate is net 4,5 forint to allocate to the target the advertisement publications, which would mean gross 22,86 million forint, but the Post Office reported that this price is only available for the ”public senders”. (According to our information the Post Office asks from the parties a near tariff as the public senders tariff, which based on the amount in 2010 it got 3,5-4 million „campaign message” to the houses – the editor.) If the state company wouldn’t give a preference for the CÖF-CÖKA which is campaigning for the Fidesz then it would cost 14-16 million forints. 

Free and fair election? It doesn’t look promising

It was on August 6, 2011 that I reported on Hillary Clinton’s apprehensions about the state of democracy in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. She talked about the two-thirds majority that “offers the temptation to overreach. It can … allow for important checks and balances to be swept aside, and valid objections from citizens to be ignored.” 

This is why “the United States and other friends” are urging Hungary to pay special attention to the drafting of the cardinal laws. “The most important of these will pertain to an independent media and judiciary, and free and fair elections. The system cannot be permanently tilted to favor one party or another.”

Elsewhere, also during the same trip to Hungary, in a conversation with leaders of the opposition she reiterated that holding “free and fair elections” is a prerequisite of democracy. If that principle is violated, we can no longer talk about a free and democratic society. She practically told the opposition leaders: let’s see what happens. Until then, we cannot do anything.

Well, the national election will be held on April 6, 2014, and it can easily happen that it will be anything but fair. It will be a system that is “tilted to favor one party.” Foreign observers will most likely not find wholesale cheating, although even that possibility cannot be entirely ruled out, but the constantly changing laws over the past year or so are destined to tilt the playing field in favor of the governing party.


Here are a few worrisome signs that Viktor Orbán is planning to determine the outcome of the election through rules and regulations that are disadvantageous to the opposition. Let’s start with the introduction of a system that forced all the opposition forces to form a united front against one highly centralized and monolithic party, Fidesz. Getting the divergent parties to agree to a common platform took a long time and gave an undue advantage to Fidesz. Second, the redrawing of the electoral districts greatly favors Fidesz. Third, according to the Hungarian constitution the president alone can determine the date of the election within a certain time frame and naturally János Áder, a former Fidesz politician, picked the earliest possible date, which favors the government party. He did that despite the fact that a later date would have allowed the government to hold the national and European parliamentary elections at the same time. Another reason for not holding the two elections simultaneously was Fidesz’s desire to have a low turnout at both elections. A low turnout favors Fidesz.

Kecskemét Tribunal

Here we have included academic recognition which the case has received.

In the Wake of Strasbourg’s Decision, Hungary Awaits an Announcement from the Handó Hearing

Navigating the Hungarian judicial system seems a bit like finding a foothold. Last Tuesday the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced that the prosecutors and courts responsible for the pretrial incarceration of Miklós Hagyó had violated several of his basic rights established and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.




This was excellent news for the entrenched former Deputy Mayor of Budapest and socialist Member of Parliament.

While the Judiciary is Gagged, the Public is Blind

Even while under major scrutiny from the European Parliament and the U.S. Helsinki Commission for shady backroom politics, Hungary still persists on operating behind closed doors.

Just last week I wrote that the Constitutional Court had summoned President of the National Judicial Office (PNJO) Tünde Handó to provide a testimony in connection with her decisions to transfer certain trials from one tribunal to another. This is considered an alarming capability since courts usually represent a specific place on the political spectrum. 

The European Union Fights Back

Regarding a controversial piece of legislation passed by the Fidesz supermajority which hastily forced into early retirement 750 judges, in a time when retirement ages are increasing internationally due to economic forces, the European Commission and the European Parliament has decided to pursue a more proactive approach in dealing with Prime Minister Orbán and his Fidesz cronies.

 Prime Minister Orbán on the Defense

Source: http://www.bbj.hu/politics/ec-ready-to-check-hungarys-compliance-with-ruling-of-the-european-court-of-justice_65350

Orban's court is running, Tasz: Appoint court is dangerous!

Tünde Handó for the trial of the Hagyó-case appointed that court, which is sentenced Zuschalg for eight and half years imprisonment.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (TASZ) keep very solicitous and incompatible with the requirement of the decent proceeding that regulation, what makes possible that the president of the National Judical Office appoint a different court from the venue for the proceeding's conduct, and attract the president to not give place for such appointments henceforward.- announced the TASZ.



(Photo source: fn.hir24.hu)

The president of the National Judical Office (OBH) used her right what recorded in the basic law's temporary commision, and for nine judical proceeding she appointed countryside courts. The reason of the appointment was the over load of the Court of Budapest. 

Fair and Balanced? Not in Hungary, ‘Scoreboard’ Says

The European Union’s executive body, the European Commission (EC), recently published a report on the different judicial systems within the EU. The report, titled The EU Justice Scoreboard, was created with the objective to “assist the EU and the Member States to achieve more effective justice by providing objective, reliable and comparable data on the functioning of the justice systems of all Member States.”





Of the 29 Member States included in the report, Hungary fared well in timely decisions. That was about the only good news for the Central European country, though.

The 4th Amendment (Un)officially Strips Hungary of Democracy

“We are people too!” People protest the 4th amendment outside of Parliament in Budapest on March 11, 2013.

Hungary has again made international headlines. As in the recent past, it is because of the political antics of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz cronies, who wield a super-majority presence in the legislative body, Parliament.





Mainstream international media powerhouses like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Al Jazeera, Spiegel, and BBC all reported on the newest amendment to the 14-month-old constitution.

Meet Tünde Handó

In Hungary, one woman effectively controls the judiciary, and she happens to be married to the author of its constitution

• Share271
• inShare2
• Email

• 
• • Joshua Rozenberg
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 March 2012 17.16 GMT
  • Jump to comments (107)

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban has told the EU not to meddle in Hungarian domestic affairs. Photograph: Ferenc Isza/AFP/Getty Images

Imagine a European country where one person can pick the judges. And effectively sack them or transfer them to other courts. And draw up court rules. And initiate legislation on the courts. And hold some 60 other specified legal powers.

Now imagine that this individual has been just given a nine-year term of office. And that, even after that term is up, this hugely powerful figure will simply remain in office unless a successor can command a two-thirds majority in the country's parliament. What would you call a country like that?

The answer, of course, is Hungary. All these powers are in the hands of Tünde Handó, a former judge and president of the newly established national judicial office (NJO). No doubt it's pure coincidence that she is married to József Szájer, a founding member of the ruling Fidesz party and the man credited with drawing up Hungary's constitution on his iPad. Szájer resigned his posts in the domestic party when his wife was appointed in January, but remains a member of the European parliament and a key figure who briefed reporters over breakfast at the Hungarian embassy in London last month.

Little wonder, then, that Hungary was told this week to modify its judicial system. The call came from the Venice commission, the Council of Europe's highly-respected but little-known advisory body on constitutional structures. Its members include senior academics, constitutional lawyers, judges and members of national parliaments. "In no other member state of the Council of Europe are such important powers, including the power to select judges and senior office-holders, vested in one single person," the commission concluded.

Given the "high procedural obstacles in the way of a removal procedure" and the NJO president's "extremely wide competences", the Venice commission insisted that Handó's "accountability must be increased". In particular, "binding decisions should be subject to judicial review".

In contrast to Handó's all-powerful NJO, Hungary also has a national judicial council, elected from among the judges. The Hungarian government told the Venice commission that the judges' council's "main and most important power" was to initiate the removal of the NJO president from office.

But the commission was not impressed. This was no more than a right to put a request to parliament, it concluded. The council's decisions were not binding and its opinions could be ignored. According to the Venice commission, the judges' council "has scarcely any significant powers and its role in the administration of the judiciary can be regarded as negligible".

And that's quite apart from the fact that nearly 10% of the Hungarian judiciary are losing their jobs because the retirement age is being reduced from 70 to 62. "A whole generation of judges, who were doing their jobs without obvious shortcomings and who were entitled - and expected - to continue to work as judges, have to retire," the commission notes. Handó will then be able to promote more than 200 judges to the most senior positions.

Responding to the Venice commission report this week, the Hungarian government promised to introduce legislation that would transfer some of the administrative tasks of the NJC president to the national judicial council and augment the council's existing supervisory powers. In future, the NJC president would only be able to exercise certain powers in accordance with principles prescribed by the judicial council, the ministry of public administration and justice said.

Who asked the Venice commission for their opinion in the first place? The answer is Hungary, whose government invited a delegation to Budapest last month and provided "excellent co-operation". The delegation spoke to Handó, among others. It says, in effect, that she should not take its comments personally.

But it is impossible to ignore the commission's conclusion. Asked to examine Hungarian laws on the independence of the judiciary, the commission says: "the reform, as a whole, threatens the independence of the judiciary."

And the Hungarians can't say they didn't know what to expect. Last June, the Venice commission published a report on Hungary's new constitution, which had been passed two months earlier and came into force at the beginning of this year.

The commission concluded that too many provisions in the constitution had been designated as "cardinal laws", which could not be amended without a two-thirds majority in parliament. Some of these should have been left to ordinary legislation, the commission said. "When not only the fundamental principles but also very specific and detailed rules on certain issues will be enacted in cardinal laws," it added, "the principle of democracy itself is at risk."

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/20/tunde-hando-hungarian-judges

Hungary’s rush toward autocracy

By Editorial Board,January 09, 2012

WHILE THE European Union has been focused on the debt problems of Greece and Italy, a potentially more profound challenge has been developing in the Central European nation of Hungary, a former part of the Soviet bloc that now belongs to NATO and the European Union. Hungary, which still uses its own currency, the forint, is flirting with insolvency. Its 10-year bonds have been fetching interest rates near 10 percent, far above sustainable levels.

But Hungary has another problem too: Its right-wing nationalist government has launched an assault on its democratic system of government. Using a two-thirds majority in parliament, it has pushed through a new constitution as well as a series of fundamental laws that give the ruling party sweeping powers over the judiciary, the media, churches and the central bank. With the new charter and laws taking effect Jan. 1, the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban now more resembles the autocratic regimes of Russia and Belarus than fellow E.U. democracies.

Some 270 judges are being forced to retire, and sole authority to name their replacements has been given to a close associate of Mr. Orban — who also may choose the courts where cases are assigned. All but 14 religious denominations have been denied official recognition; those losing tax-exempt status and state school payments include the Episcopal and Methodist churches, several Jewish congregations, and all Muslim sects. A leading opposition radio station was denied a license by a new media board controlled by Mr. Orban’s followers. Electoral districts have been redrawn in such a way that the ruling Fidesz party — which lost two of the last three elections — would have won all three.

Mr. Orban has ignored mounting criticism of these initiatives by European and Western governments, including the Obama administration. Instead, he pushed through many more laws during the last weeks of December, including one that strips the central bank of independence and another that fixes flat tax rates in a way that will make it hard for future governments to alter them. This has given leverage to the European commission, because E.U. treaties require central bank independence. With the Hungarian government in desperate need of financing, Brussels and the International Monetary Fund have made clear no help will be forthcoming unless the laws are changed.

At first defiant, Mr. Orban has now dispatched a negotiator to meet with the IMF in Washington; over the weekend he hinted that he might retreat on the central bank. But the European Union, which is due to consider Hungary’s case this week, should not limit itself to the financial sphere in pushing back against Mr. Orban’s concentration of power. The new laws governing the judiciary, religious bodies and the media are incompatible with basic human rights and democratic checks and balances. For the European Union to tolerate them in a member state would be a breach of the community’s essential character.

Source: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-09/opinions/35438920_1_central-bank-european-union-fidesz-party

Tuck and Roll, Miklós!

Miklós Hagyó is ducking and dodging what appears to be an all-out militaristic assault. The title of the image is “Budapest Ostroma” which is translated into “The Siege of Budapest.” The grey figure waving I have no idea what type of flag says, “Look out! They are not just shooting at Hagyó!”

This of course is in reference to the Fidesz (Fee-dess) party, which has a majority rule over the Hungarian government. As I have written before, a popular theory behind the Hagyó case is that the Fidesz used Miklós Hagyó, who was a popular politician of Fidesz’s rival party, as a scapegoat of government corruption to win the previous national elections. That theory has not yet been proven, but Fidesz certainly took control of parliament. Since then, the party wrote and implemented a new constitution which nationally centralized many societal tools: the judicial system, the banking system, and the media. If that wasn’t enough of a power grab, Fidesz’s leader, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has faced international allegations of putting his friends in very powerful positions within these three sectors, presumably in an effort to ensure his remains the prime minister. Ah, Hungary…

Source: http://thehagyocase.wordpress.com

Mr. Prime Minister of Hungary

And now on to the Hungarian policy makers who represent many different parties. There are two of those that stand out as being the, usually, dominant decision makers. One is MSZP, the Magyar Szocialista Párt, or the Hungarian Socialist Party. The other is the party which holds the majority of the representative power in the government, Fidesz, the Magyar Polgári Szövetség, or the Hungarian Civic Union. The current Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, is a member of Fidesz.

Photo Source: http://www.kormany.hu

Source: http://thehagyocase.wordpress.com

Judicial Tentacles

Towards the end of my last written post, I briefly mentioned the Hungarian Constitutional Court.  I stated that it is “controversial” and “a special branch of the judiciary which is responsible for reviewing the acts of the Parliament.”  This post will begin a short series on the Constitutional Court and the Hungarian Judiciary in relation to the proceedings against Miklós Hagyó.  To start things off, I would like to describe a bit of the Constitutional Court’s history, structure, and its role in modern Hungarian life.

The notion of a Constitutional Court was first put forth in January 1989.  The newly democratic Hungary, essentially their Parliamentary Ministers, had decided it was appropriate to concoct such an institution that would be “one of the guarantees of the rule of law by practicing constitutional review of legal provisions.”  In other words, the Court would determine if Parliament’s legislation is permitted within the constitutional framework.  After a few permitting additions to the freshly devised Hungarian Constitution, the first five Constitutional Court members were elected by Parliament in November 1989.  The court, itself, was functional in January 1990; exactly one year after the idea had been formulated.  Sometime in mid-1990 an additional five judges were chosen to serve on the Court by the newly elected Parliament.  The elected judges were a sovereign, independent body separated from the ordinary judicial system.  They had their own budget, and they were responsible for organizing a secret ballot in which a president would be elected.  Finally, the president would appoint one or two vice presidents who would assume the presidential responsibilities in the case of his absence.  During the next 21 years, according to the Constitutional Court’s website, it had “an outstanding role in the protection of individual fundamental rights,” listing decisions of cases involving abortion and euthanasia, among others.

Some changes to the Constitutional Court were made in 2011, which were part of the new Hungarian Constitution, dubbed by its Fidesz creators the Fundamental Law: As of September 2011 the allotted number of judges changed from 11 to 15; the Court’s president, historically elected by the judges, is now appointed by Parliament; the President of the Constitutional Court, who previously served a term of three years, is now elected to office for 12 years.  Although, the new structure of the Constitutional Court does not permit it to rule on financial matters, the Court is still considered the main organ for the protection of the Hungarian Constitution.

You may wonder how these changes to one particular judicial branch, whose sole responsibility is to determine the constitutionality of legislation, is related to the current Hungarian political environment?  Like everything else that has occurred under the governing Fidesz party, these changes essentially permit further consolidation of judicial power; just one mechanism within the Fidesz centralization apparatus.  In doing so, Viktor Orbán and his party undermine their opposition’s ability to contest the current authoritarianism bureaucratically sweeping through Hungary’s administration, and, more importantly for those who oppose the Fidesz Party – such as Miklós Hagyó, the Constitutional Court reforms give Fidesz much longer influence into happenings of the Court.

For example, the current Parliamentary body comprises two-thirds of Fidesz members, and the remaining one-third consists of 5 different parties.  In different terms a supermajority of 226 Fidesz while the other 5 parties combine a total of 160 members of parliament.  For the Fidesz, numbers like that facilitate successful legislation and promoting allies to influential positions, perhaps new judges or even the President of the Constitutional Court.  Conveniently, new judges and a new president REQUIRE votes from exactly two-thirds of the parliament in order to take office.  As I mentioned earlier, that new president will now oversee the Constitutional Court for 12 years! So, the two-thirds Fidesz parliamentary super-majority elects the President of the Constitutional Court, they elect the judges which sit on the court, and as I said, they increased the size of the Court from 11 members to 15.

Some may say, what is wrong with that?  It is normal for a political party to chase influence, if not direct power, is it not?  Of course it is.  This happens all over the world, including within the major democratic states of the world.  But the Hungarian Constitution, or the Fundamental Law, was devised by Fidesz, voted acceptable by the two-thirds Fidesz supermajority, and now they spreading their tentacles in the Constitutions major protector, the Constitutional Court.  As the memory of the communist regime still lingers within the Hungarian populace, parallels are not difficult to observe.

Source: http://thehagyocase.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/judicial-tentacles/

Weaving Their Web

 “Revolution happened today in the polling booths… Hungarian people today have ousted the regime of oligarchs who misused their power, and the people have established a new regime, the regime of national unity.” – Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán Viktor

(Szivos Maria, far left, appointed to the Hungarian Constitutional Court.)

This quote was made during his post-election speech in Budapest on April 25^th, 2010.  The election in which he was voted to serve as the Prime Minister of Hungary: the election in which the Fidesz party received the two-thirds majority of votes to serve as the primary power in the Hungarian Parliament – the major legislation body.  

A Sense of Foreshadowing

So far I have introduced Hagyó Miklós, the former socialist politician (MSZP – Budapest district XII Deputy Mayor) and co-supervisor of the Budapest Public Transport Company (BKV), who for nearly three years has been the primary suspect in the high-profile BKV corruption scandal.  

The Hagyó Case - The Operations of the Hungarian Judiciary and the Media in Practice

Within the last month the work of the Hungarian government received a lot of criticism from Europe and the United States. The world's leading journals, diplomats and political organizations drafted a definite opinion about Hungarian democracy. Most often the observations were about changes of the jurisdiction since the Fidesz won the elections with two-thirds (clear majority) in 2010, and Orbán Viktor was voted into the executive power of the Prime Minister position.

Fidesz advertisement with Hagyó in the background

On the May 5th, 2012, Thomas O. Melia who is the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Foreign Affairs gave an interview to the Hungarian TV channel, ATV, and he said that the media and jurisdiction situations are solicitous. The Freedom House relegated Hungary from the free category to the restricted free. The attitude of the Fidesz was well represented by Deutsch Tamás, a member of the European Parliament, on his official Twitter page. He wrote about the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Foreign Affairs, "Who the fuck is Thomas O. Melia?” When asked by a journalist about his comment he answered that his response was funny. (source: [forrás: „Szabad szemmel” – ATV, 2012. május 6.]